Do you think large polluters should be punished?

[donnashuggy]

Is this making it too easy for them?

http://www.skynews.com.au/topstories/article.aspx?id=939851&vId=

[izabsmiling]

Crikey*mate: I don't believe that we should grovel to wealthy businesses .Nor do I believe that Gina is doing it tough and is right in expecting us to work for her for $2 a day .Her expectations should not be given in to. 

Reading the link in the OP how do you suggest that encourage them to reduce their emissions in line with our goals ?

Do you assume that all big companies think our goals matter ?

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@lakeland27 wrote:

well not really, control is largely a state matter. take WA for example . in respect of state royalties (tax) on exports (which effectively re-directed federal money (mining tax) into state royalties by raising the percentage of royalty above the level where the mining tax cuts out.

''During 2011-12, the Department of Mines and Petroleum collected more than $5.3 billion in royalties (as opposed to taxation of company income) from mineral and petroleum producers in Western Australia (WA).'' http://www.dmp.wa.gov.au/11857.aspx

its a far more complex business than the federal figures show.

---

crude petroleum is our 7th biggest export, it's up from $9 Billion 3 years ago to a tad over $11 last year...

That's a freakin long way short of our top 3, isn't it?

It's $37 Billion behind coal....!

Lakes, IMO, we need to encourage these c ompanies to stay, not force them to leave, not yet, not till we can replac e them with something.

This isn't about allowing them to pollute with impunity, they will still be accountable, (for those not worried about how we will feed and clothe our population), but we need to make it profitable for them to remain here, or they will do what Holden and QANTAS et al did and pack up and move!

Wasn't Gonski or NDIS something like $20Billion over 4 years to fund? If we lose coal, then we LOSE more than that EVERY YEAR

There ya go iza - think of it like that.... for every year that coal produces $48 Billion (and it is increasing at 10% ish every 5 years) we get to have the NDIS for 4 years.

would you give up the NDIS and Gonski (or whatever **bleep** education system we will undoubtedly get next) plus another $20 Billion dollars per year to pay for something like ummmm other health care, pensions, age care? (for example) to 'save the GBR"?

Would you deny the disabled some sort of care? Our kids some kind of education? to "save the GBR"?

Is it worth that much to you, that you would allow the old to starve, the diabled and sick to suffer?

Cos if we lose those exports, we lose the money to pay for those....

if we lose those exports, how will we pay for our unemployed that this will cause?

Folks wer4e cross when Holden moved, and that was just a few thousand unemployed.... what happens when  1/3 of our workforce is unemployed? Who's going to feed them?

You say it is money, but can't you see that it is people's lives?

Would you really give precedence to the GBR over people's lives?

[izabsmiling]

no need for alarmism .I believe that we need to find a better,smarter way of doing things with minimal impact  .It's that simple.I don't see the plan in  the OP encourages companies to give a toss about us and our environment and the garbage they produce while making money.

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@izabsmiling wrote:

Crikey*mate: I don't believe that we should grovel to wealthy businesses .Nor do I believe that Gina is doing it tough and is right in expecting us to work for her for $2 a day .Her expectations should not be given in to. 

Reading the link in the OP how do you suggest that encourage them to reduce their emissions in line with our goals ?

Do you assume that all big companies think our goals matter ?

---

fine then, let them move.... then what?

where do we go for employment and jobs and food and welfare?

My family and i will be fine, we can work anywhere in the world if we have to, and it won't worry us too much, but can you and yours?

but what about that 1/3 of our population that will then be unemployed? can they work anywhere in the world? should they have to leave australia so they can get a job?

Then that 1/3 of our population takes their kids and moves overseas for jobs (and something better than a 3rd world economy), then we start to have an oversupply of things like teachers, nurses, doctors, etc etc......

If any of that happens, who do you reckon we will be grovelling to then? who will feed us? employ us? care for us? and with what?

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@izabsmiling wrote:

no need for alarmism .I believe that we need to find a better,smarter way of doing things with minimal impact  .It's that simple.I don't see the plan in  the OP encourages companies to give a toss about us and our environment and the garbage they produce while making money.

---

pretty sure I said that way back there somewhere......

so they use the incentives they receive to reinvest back into researching better ways etc... (Icy said it too)

all the companies want to do is make money. as long as we make sure they can make more money here than elsewhere, then they stay, but as soon as they can start earning more money somewhere else, they will go and take 1/3 of our economy with them. So we cannot make it more expensive for them to operate here than it does somewhere else. Can you understand that?

so when you look at it like that, those top 3 industries have us by The short and curlies Bass Straight....

their perspective is no different to yours. You would leave your source of income (job) if you found something (another job) more suited to your wants and needs, wouldn't you?

well so will they.

it's Economics 101. we have to make sure it is in their best interest to stay here, rather than go overseas... we don't have to give them impunity, we just have to make sure that we are doing enough to make it worthwhile for them to stay.

so if they can earn $50 in japan (or wherever) then we have to nmake sure they can earn $51, here, we don't have to make it so they can earn unlimited, just more than our competitors....

[izabsmiling]

where else will they go ?

CARBON TAXES AROUND THE WORLD

CHINA (state-based action)

The Chinese Government plans to develop emissions trading schemes in seven key cities and provinces from 2013. These schemes will cover around 250 million people. The Chinese Government aims to work towards a nation-wide approach after 2015.

UNITED STATES (state-based action)

There is no nationwide carbon tax levelled in the USA, although a few states have introduced the tax. The United States Administration has not been able to secure support for legislation to set either a price or a limit on greenhouse gas emissions. However, emissions trading has operated in the power sector in nine states since 2009. California's emissions trading scheme will start in January 2013.

CANADA (province-based action)

Canada does not have a federal carbon tax, but two Canadian provinces have existing carbon taxes (Quebec and British Columbia). Alberta implemented emissions trading in 2006 and Quebec's scheme will start in 2013. A further two provinces, British Columbia and Ontario, are considering emissions trading schemes.The Canadian Federal Government has no immediate plans to implement national emissions trading.

INDIA (tax on coal)

In July 2010, India introduced a nationwide carbon tax of 50 rupees per tonne (less than $A1) of coal both produced and imported to India.

NEW ZEALAND

The New Zealand Government set up an emissions trading scheme in 2008. The scheme covered forestry initially, and was then expanded in 2010 to cover stationary energy, transport, liquid fossil fuels and industrial processes.

SOUTH KOREA 

The Republic of Korea passed legislation in May 2012 for an emissions trading scheme to start from 1 January 2015. The emissions trading scheme will cover facilities producing more than 25,000 tonnes of greenhouse

as emissions – expected to be around 450 of the country's largest emitters.

JAPAN 

In April 2012, Japan legislated for a carbon tax of approximately ¥289 per tonne ($A3.30) by increasing existing taxes on fossil fuels (coal and LPG/LNG) with effect from 1 October 2012. Half the revenue will
fund low-emissions technologies. Japan has emissions trading schemes operating in the Tokyo and Saitama regions, covering 20 million people.

EUROPE (national-based action)

The European Union emissions trading scheme began in 2005 and now covers the 27 countries of the European Union, and three non-European Union members: Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway. Their current target is a 21 per cent cut of 2005 emissions by 2025 (Australia's is a 5% cut of 2000 emissions by 2020).

A carbon tax was proposed by the European Commission in 2010, but a carbon tax has not been agreed upon by the 27 member states. The current proposal by the European Commission would charge firms between 4 and 30 euros per metric tonne of CO2. 

Several European countries have enacted a carbon tax. They include: Denmark, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK.

FINLAND

Finland introduced the world's first carbon tax in 1990, initially with exemptions for specific sectors. Manly changes were later introduced, such as a border tax on imported electricity. Natural gas has a reduced tax rate, while peat was exempted between 2005 and 2010. In 2010, Finland's price on carbon was €20 per tonne of CO2.

THE NETHERLANDS

The Netherlands introduced a carbon tax in 1990, which was then replaced by a tax on fuels. In 2007, it introduced a carbon-based tax on packaging, to encourage recycling.

SWEDEN

In 1991, Sweden enacted a tax on the use of coal, oil, natural gas, petrol and aviation fuel used in domestic travel. The tax was 0.25 SEK/kg ($US100 per tonne of C02) and was later raised to $US150. With Sweden raising prices on fossil fuels since enacting the carbon tax, it cut its carbon pollution by 9 per cent between 1990 and 2006.

NORWAY

In 1991, Norway introduced a tax on carbon. However its carbon emissions increased by 43 per cent per capita between 1991 and 2008.

DENMARK

Since 2002, Denmark has had a carbon tax of 100 DKK per metric ton of CO2, equivalent to approximately 13 Euros or 18 US dollars. Denmark's carbon tax applies to all energy users, but industrial companies are taxed differently depending on the process the energy is used for, and whether or not the company has entered into a voluntary agreement to apply energy efficiency measures.

SWITZERLAND

A carbon incentive tax was introduced in Switzerland in 2008. It includes all fossil fuels, unless they are used for energy. Swiss companies can be exempt from the tax if they participate in the country's emissions trading system. The tax amounts to CHF 36 per metric tonne CO2.

UK

In 1993, the UK government introduced a tax on retail petroleum products, to reduce emissions in the transport sector. The UK's Climate Change Levy was introduced in 2001. The United Kingdom participates in the European Union emissions trading scheme and is covered by European Union policies and measures. The United Kingdom has put in place regulations requiring all new homes to have zero emissions for heating, hot water, cooling and lighting from 2016.

IRELAND

A tax on oil and gas came into effect in 2010. It was estimated to add around €43 to filling a 1000 litre oil tank and €41 to the average annual gas bill.

COSTA RICA

In 1997, Costa Rica enacted a tax on carbon pollution, set at 3.5 per cent of the market value of fossil fuels. The revenue raised from this goes into a national forest fund which pays indigenous communities for protecting the forests around them.

BRAZIL

The state of Rio de Janeiro is exploring options to implement a state-wide cap and trade system.

SOUTH AFRICA

South Africa introduced a carbon tax on new vehicle sales in September 2010. South Africa is planning to introduce a carbon tax from 2013, starting at R120 ($A15) per tonne for emissions above a threshold. Each company will have 60 per cent of its emissions tax exempt, with higher exemption thresholds for cement, iron, steel, aluminium, ceramics and fugitive emissions as well as trade exposed industries. Agriculture, forestry, land use and waste will not be taxed.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2013/10/29/factbox-carbon-taxes-around-world

[izabsmiling]

Earth Charter signed by our then PM John Howard 

Earth Charter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Earth Charter is an international declaration of fundamental values and principles considered useful by its supporters for building a just, sustainable, and peaceful global society in the 21st century. Created by a global consultation process, and endorsed by organizations representing millions of people, the Charter "seeks to inspire in all peoples a sense of global interdependence and shared responsibility for the well-being of the human family, the greater community of life, and future generations."[1] It calls upon humanity to help create a global partnership at a critical juncture in history. The Earth Charter's ethical vision proposes that environmental protection, human rights, equitable human development, and peace are interdependent and indivisible. The Charter attempts to provide a new framework for thinking about and addressing these issues. The Earth Charter Initiative organization exists to promote the Charter.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Charter

[lakeland27]

''crude petroleum is our 7th biggest export, it's up from $9 Billion 3 years ago to a tad over $11 last year...

That's a freakin long way short of our top 3, isn't it?

It's $37 Billion behind coal....!  ''

that figure is all commodities (WA) . it demonstrates the state interest is as important as the federal.  QLD and NSW would make up the bulk of that coal export figure, and they are liberal states . thats not to say as labor states they didn;t export coal, it merely shows that the claim of labor being responsible is false. its governments of both persuasions.

i also think if they stopped exporting coal tommorrow we'd all be better off. health considerations are of more importance than profits which mostly go offshore (well above 80%)

[*crikey*mate*]

you couldn't bold or highlight some of that? pop in a paragraph somewhere?

I'm not reading that, and it is irrelevant anyway.

To use any figures in there, I would have to research and compare other economies and determione their sources of revenue and expenditure etc etc populations, GDP's, Primary Industries, resources... etyc etc  in order to compare apples with apples, and quite frankly, that's the PM's job to know all that, not mine....

I just know that we have to give them incentive to stay, and as a business' goal is to make money, we have to crunch all those numbers and make sure they can make more money here than they can elsewhere,,, that's the incentive....otherwise they will go set up shop next to Holden and QANTAS and employ another country's populace and feed another country's people,,,

Now, I reckon the PM knows how much they can earn here (as opposed to how much they may want to earn, he's not interested in that) and hiow much they can earn elsewhere, and if anyione in his office has sat through even 1st year Economics at uni, they will know the principles I have explained above and what they have to do to keep them here...

It's that simple.

we just have to do enough to make sure that it is $1 more economically viable for them to operate here, rather than elsewhere.

whether we like it or not, for now, we NEED them here, we cannot afford for them to leave under any circumstances, as they provide 1/3 of our export income and employment (and that's just the top 3) and we have NIOTHING at this stage to replace them with.

If you want money for eduation, health, NDIS, food and shelter, it is that simple.... if we want to spend money, we have to make sure we have some to start with, and all thiose things we want, they cost money.

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@lakeland27 wrote:

''crude petroleum is our 7th biggest export, it's up from $9 Billion 3 years ago to a tad over $11 last year...

That's a freakin long way short of our top 3, isn't it?

It's $37 Billion behind coal....!  ''

that figure is all commodities (WA) . it demonstrates the state interest is as important as the federal.  QLD and NSW would make up the bulk of that coal export figure, and they are liberal states . thats not to say as labor states they didn;t export coal, it merely shows that the claim of labor being responsible is false. its governments of both persuasions.

i also think if they stopped exporting coal tommorrow we'd all be better off. health considerations are of more importance than profits which mostly go offshore (well above 80%)

---

fair enough love...

so maybe you could tell me if we lost their income, what we would do with the unemployed? how would we feed them? Sure, they might be a bit heaslthier, but how long could they survive without food, anyway? Who's going to pay them? Who's going to feed their children?

You'ren a very smart man, you can look at the statistics and see how much they bring in....

but I have no answers as to what we would replace them with, do you?

we can't even operate at a profit with their income, how in the hell do we operate at all without it?

I don't want them to mine, I don't want them to pollute, but right now, I can't see that we have a choice.

I can't see how we sustain and employ our population if we lose that income...

Yeah, our health may be more important than profits, but we have to eat too, or it won't matter how healthy we are, and that's all 22 million aussies, not just the 1/3 in those industries....

As i said to Iza, my family can pack up and pretty much work anywhere, and my kids are educated to above international standards as well, so they too can easily move pretty much anywhere.... so really, apart from having to leave Australia, my family will be ok, so it doesn't worry me, but I'm not sure we can say the same for everyone else, can we?

OH and I can be in Londion next week (or as long as it takes us to get LC a passport, she doesn't have one yet, we didn't anticipate she would need one until next year), fully employed. and BC already has acceptance at Oxford, so he will be fine and the others are still in school, so they will be fine too, but is it that easy for everyone else?