That sounds all nice and warm and fuzzy.
I buy Australian made if I can.That sounds all nice and warm and fuzzy.
When did you last buy an Australian made bicycle?
When did you last buy an Australian made shirt?
When did you last buy an Australian made television?
When did you last buy Australian made shoes?
Nope. They're Australian prices.
have you even read my posts?
dude, i agree with you. it's a great concept. if it could be implemented everywhere then i would be all for it. but it can't. and knowing that, here's the thing: it's a per unit tax. a per unit tax is effectively an extra cost on the business. that means it's now at a competitive disadvantage to those without it. we have enough trouble keeping things in australia with the endless costs of unions, minimum wage, red tape and all manner of other bullshit without adding onto this.
scblack gets it.This is ONLY a possibility against other Australian competitors. Unfortunately competitors are GLOBAL, not just aussie.
So a tax on carbon is giving ALL Australian businesses a competitive DISadvantage.
There is NO good outcome here.
what that means is pay a higher price - the tax being passed on to the consumers. just like i showed pages ago.
Please don’t insinuation and provocation if you intend to engage rationally.
Which takes you to about the same level of intellectual integrity as a creationist or energy healer – you’re right because you are and so there.
Ok – verbatim:
and when challenged on the difficulties of quantifying costs you propose:
If your first proposition is to be held true – environmental degradation must be quantified – rendering your second proposition contradictory. If your second proposition is held to be true, proposition one is invalidated. How else can it be interpreted but as a contradiction?
A purported conversation is hearsay. A news article is a secondary source. It’s plenty to form an opinion on and China investigating mineral options in Africa is logical. However it’s far from concrete and even further from being a soapbox on which to rant at people using absolutes in caps lock, condescending redundancies and generally be overbearing about.
I’m not missing the point at all. You don’t really grasp the concept of logical fallacy or you do and think that pleading special case by semantics invalidates the concept for you in particular. But I’m leaving it here because this is a dead horse.
Yes. In fact just to reiterate, here are a few of your comments on inaction
...
Just from a couple of posts we can pretty much define your core argument.
I thought you said the past was irrelevant? Running around in circles contradicting yourself isn't helping matters.
I said no such thing. We had a discussion in a previous thread about union labour (or lack thereof) and the differences in wages and health and safety and wages between countries. AT NO POINT was slavery ever mentioned - you are really grasping at straws there!- and if you'd actually read MY posts you would clearly see that in the Carbon Tax discussion, the slave trade was referenced as an example of a highly profitable industry that was discontinued across the board for moral and ethical reasons.
Finland, The Netherlands, Sweden, India!, Norway, Denmark, Switzerland, Ireland and even little ole Costa Rica have all enacted levies on fossil fuels and /or carbon production in some form or another with an expressed desire to reduce carbon emissions.
my view isn't purely inaction. it's "only use action when others will too". if all the other countries out there were going to implement this if we did, i'd be all for it. but they're not now and won't in the future, (which is why i'm not all for it). i have explained, and even used examples and evidence showing why they won't.Yes. In fact just to reiterate, here are a few of your comments on inaction
...
Just from a couple of posts we can pretty much define your core argument.
How about these two?
combine that with the fact that consumers, not producers will pay the costs and yes you're right.
I thought you said the past was irrelevant? Running around in circles contradicting yourself isn't helping matters.
perhaps i should have clarified furhter, and added current in there as well. by past i meant only the very near past. you know, like the coal power station that was built this week. and the one before it. and the one before that. and the one before that.
sure that's "technically" in the past but when you talk in large scale things such as countries and hundreds of years saying "they are doing it now" can cover a period of weeks/months.
the statement referencing the past was not the same "previous meaning last week" statement i was talking about when i said "previous behavior".
has that clarified things?
I said no such thing. We had a discussion in a previous thread about union labour (or lack thereof) and the differences in wages and health and safety and wages between countries. AT NO POINT was slavery ever mentioned - you are really grasping at straws there!- and if you'd actually read MY posts you would clearly see that in the Carbon Tax discussion, the slave trade was referenced as an example of a highly profitable industry that was discontinued across the board for moral and ethical reasons.
perhaps you didn't use the word slave. but you're doing a pretty good job of describing it. is it not what you meant?And not having industrial fatality rates, working hours or (lack of) wages like China.
f***, even the poor sods who make iPads over there are dropping dead because of their working conditions.
Finland, The Netherlands, Sweden, India!, Norway, Denmark, Switzerland, Ireland and even little ole Costa Rica have all enacted levies on fossil fuels and /or carbon production in some form or another with an expressed desire to reduce carbon emissions.
aha. see. EXPRESSED A DESIRE. you know why they have expressed a desire rather than actually implementing it? because they know that it's a total waste of time if everyone else aren't doing it. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING.
Now the implementation of a carbon tax is always going to be a contentious issue and I will happily admit I'm not entirely convinced by the governments motives or their methods. This is why I am not entering a debate on the effectiveness of Labor's tax. However your view that inaction is the best policy in the face of potential worldwide catastrophe really gets my goat as we are a first world democracy (and quite a successful one at that) and there are NO first world countries that have cemented their place in the world without adopting social responsibilities.
i agree with everything that you're saying, BUT.
There is a big difference between harsh working conditions with low pay/minimal health and safety and kidnapping, transport across oceans in horrific cramped, disease ridden conditions with a lifetime of forced servitude to follow. That there, is the slave trade. Not that it bears any relevance to this discussion other than my original example of a handful of nations choosing ethics over economics thus resulting in a worldwide change for the better.
Err. That's a list of countries that have already implemented a 'carbon tax' in one form of another. Y'know? as in they've already put it in motion. Finland have had measures like this in place for over 20 years!
If they're that carbon intensive then either we ought to be paying a premium for them, or they should have gone the way of the dodo long ago. If it's an industry that we need, but it's rooting the planet, then it ought to cost a bomb, that way we'll actively seek alternatives. If we don't need it, then it can die in a ditch like many other dead industries. If you work in that field, suck it up and get over it. Don't like it, go whinge to the asbestos miners, the pattern makers and wheel tappers. If your industry isn't sustainable then, sorry, not my job to prop you up sunshine...
Hey, it's an old photo. That's just a combination of shitty lighting and the effects of age on old photos.
None of those words belong together.
