Carbon fee & dividend wasn’t talked about 35 years ago.This threads has become like ‘days of our lives’. I haven’t watched it since a sick day in about year 9, 35 years ago, but nothing has probably changed that I can’t catch up on without watching for the first 30 seconds
The acting is better here though...This threads has become like ‘days of our lives’. I haven’t watched it since a sick day in about year 9, 35 years ago, but nothing has probably changed that I can’t catch up on without watching for the first 30 seconds
Strong disagree.The acting is better here though...
#fakenewsCarbon fee & dividend wasn’t talked about 35 years ago.
Care to discuss?
Just briefly flicked through that link hifi, it actually looks fairly interesting. Couple of questions though (hoping you might save me some effort):Anyone have any comments on this?
I feel this is the most equitable, fair & outcome-focussed solution for CC.
I wish at least one local political party proposed it so it could be discussed...
Not in a first term of government. No way the people can be sold on a huge change of direction inside 4-6 weeks. This type of change needs a 4 year term to sell it to them, after delivering positive change, e.g economic conditions improve.Funny you should say that. Ross Gittens, an economic writer I quite like, made this point quite effectively.
https://www.smh.com.au/federal-elec...n-out-to-be-the-easy-bit-20190519-p51owo.html
Worth noting in addition to this - it's smart tactics to keep a low profile in opposition to a unpopular government. Shorten stuck his neck out, and unfortunately I suspect we won't see that again for a while.
Yes, FF causes a fee, dividends are paid to the populous.Just briefly flicked through that link hifi, it actually looks fairly interesting. Couple of questions though (hoping you might save me some effort):
- How does the plan incentivise individuals to reduce household emissions? I'm guessing that fossil fuel producers will have to put prices up to cover the tax and therefore consumers will have to fork out more for petrol or use less.
- Does the plan anticipate reduced tax revenue as the consumption falls and producers decrease supply? People going 'green' and no longer getting a dividend... or has change occurred by then and the reward is clean air and a future at that point?
The fixed price increase every year should stop the manipulation that you might get in a deregulated pricing system. It also ticks the boxes for 'simple to explain', the 'how' and 'gradual change' for the most part.
Maybe there should be a Rotorburn political party that proposes it; we've got a pretty broad cross section of society here and could come up with some pretty decent policies if we tried. The shadow ministry would be truly frightening though...
And you thought the two major parties have factions!The shadow ministry would be truly frightening though...
Nah, was flawed because it didn’t act on all FF industries/CO2 forcing sources.Just put back the carbon price system we had... It worked really well and was pulling in revenue. Power prices didn’t rise (certainly under better control than afterwards because there was investment certainty).
It was simple and effective and required no special action or thought from joe blow on the street.
It was good policy...
If people need a quick example, Clive Palmer's advertising was riddled with falsehoods, half truths, and a dose of conspiracy that sounded like he stole it from Alex Jones. One of his advertisements listed some operations sold/leased by Labor governments to Chinese Communist government. No mention of the same actions that have been taken by the Liberal governments, including the world's busiest coal port.No, many parts of this election involved direct and targeted falsehoods.
OK, seeing you asked for some information earlier so you could better understand some matters, I will take that request at face value and offer you some advice here.It’s a simple answer. Finding out why is trickier...
My point is that many people didn’t make a considered decision. Or made a decision on incorrect information - this is not shallow minded or small minded, it’s simply a demonstrated fact.
Is the AEC small minded and shallow? This wouldn’t be needed if there was no false data being put out there... https://www.aec.gov.au/elections/electoral-advertising/stopandconsider.htm
Dealing with it will require working out how that can be avoided so that people can in fact make a considered decision.
As for CC, the problem is dictated by physics, it’s not a matter of opinion. Just understanding.
How do you possibly know what many people actually considered? Are you a shaman who can read their minds?My point is that many people didn’t make a considered decision.
I'll dig out some details and analysis later tonight. But it was pretty good. It had a few interim features and restrictions in place, with planned extensions and moving to a floating market based price that it never got the chance to implement.Nah, was flawed because it didn’t act on all FF industries/CO2 forcing sources.
Revenue collected was sprayed everywhere.
There was no clear direction for the consumer to make different consumption choices.
Not sure it would be easier to explain, but I imagine labor and greens should support that model because it reverses some of the regressive aspects of our taxation system. Has the added benefit of hippies potentially realizing how much more environmental damage they cause from their twice yearly copenhagen flights compared to the suburban family in a v8.I just see the fee & dividend more easy to explain to the general public.