The election thread - Two middle-late aged white men trying to be blokey and convincing..., same old shit, FFS.

[moorey]

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

 

[Zaf]

Removed by user

 

[hifiandmtb]

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

Carbon fee & dividend wasn’t talked about 35 years ago.

Care to discuss?

 

[Haakon]

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...

 

[moorey]

The acting is better here though...

Strong disagree.

 

[moorey]

Carbon fee & dividend wasn’t talked about 35 years ago.

Care to discuss?

#fakenews

 

[Haakon]

We all thought it was meant to be funny...

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...o-win-the-2019-federal-election-are-you-ready

 

[Nambra]

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...

Just briefly flicked through that link hifi, it actually looks fairly interesting. Couple of questions though (hoping you might save me some effort):

1. 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.
2. 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...

 

[link1896]

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.

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.

 

[hifiandmtb]

Just briefly flicked through that link hifi, it actually looks fairly interesting. Couple of questions though (hoping you might save me some effort):

1. 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.
2. 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...

Yes, FF causes a fee, dividends are paid to the populous.

Now FF is more expensive, peeps will use the dividend to move to non FF products & keep collecting the dividend. Those who love FF stuff can keep paying a higher price.

It’s a price incentive...and yes, the entire fee & dividend model has an end.

 

[Calvin27]

The shadow ministry would be truly frightening though...

And you thought the two major parties have factions!

Isn't carbon fee and dividend simply a carbon price set at a higher rate so that people get some of it back? Kind of feels like Andrew Yangs 'Freedom Dividend'.

 

[Haakon]

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...

 

[hifiandmtb]

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...

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.

 

[pink poodle]

No, many parts of this election involved direct and targeted falsehoods.

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.

 

[scblack]

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.

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.

You do know what that AEC notice actually is right?
It is a standard public notice advisory to give ALL voters some assistance (if they require it) so they do not blindly accept all prononcements or information provided during the election period. Its a motherhood statement.

The need for such public advisory notices dates back to the time of Snake-Oil salesmen. They would make wild claims of the effects of the oil, sell it to the local townspeople, then disappear overnight and the people had worthless bottles of oil. Politicians were similar, and still can be just as shoddy.

That notice applies to ALL parties on both sides of the political spectrum.

My point is that many people didn’t make a considered decision.

How do you possibly know what many people actually considered? Are you a shaman who can read their minds?

And WHY are they unable to make such a considered decision, and yet you are able to??? There is the deepest mystery.

 

[Haakon]

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.

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.

Point is though, it brought emissions down very effectively and was a positive influence on the economy. Both emissions and power prices went up after its abolition.

 

[scblack]

Here's a pretty cool meme:

 

[hifiandmtb]

Interested to read more.

It certainly seemed to make a difference:

I just see the fee & dividend more easy to explain to the general public. And more easily manipulated to generate an outcome.

 

[Calvin27]

I just see the fee & dividend more easy to explain to the general public.

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.

 

[Calvin27]

https://www.theage.com.au/federal-e...7iOQrgneF1e2q8ivkdyXYVYvJ_Do8cD9snHpAmb8lGRM8

Geezus Gladys! Shit form