July 17, 2011

About us

You might be wondering who is behind this site. No, we’re not a political party or lobby group. This site represents a collaborative effort between members of the Daily Wire (an online political discussion and blog site), as well as content from Skeptical Science and the Victorian Environment Defenders Office. Some content is also from the CSIRO climate change site.

If you wish to contact us, please send an email to carbontaxfacts@gmail.com

  • Bearsmum

    Speaking of misinformation – the tax isn’t on that black lump of coal – it’s a CARBON DIOXIDE tax – you know, the colourless, odourless, gas that we all exhale when we breathe, and that plants use to make them GREEN (not the looney Green, the real green!).  Keep trying, but you are not going to convince most of us!!!

  • Anonymous

    It’s actual a tax on the production of various compounds that contain carbon, like carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, CH4 (methand), various CFCs, etc. Furthermore, it only applies to the top 500 companies in this country. It’s not a tax on your breathing, quit with the strawman arguments, they are unbecoming.

  • Silly boys

    “it only applies to the top 500 companies in this country” who then pass on the cost to consumers wich leaves them no incentive to cut carbon dioxide emissions. Its a hoax. Look at the polls. No one believes your socialist rubbish. Finish uni little mindsphere and quickly get some real world exp. You need it son.

  • Anonymous

    You clearly don’t understand economics. Firstly, it will change the relative cost equation of power producers – renewables will become cheaper relatively speaking. The same can be said across all industries that are affected by the legislation.

    Secondly, although a large proportion of us won’t be affected by the price rises due to compensation, we will actually have choices to lower our expenses by selecting products manufactured through cleaner processes and end up better off.

    Gittins has the meds you need: http://www.smh.com.au/business/gillards-imperfect-carbon-plan-is-just-that-little-bit-better-20110715-1hhpt.html

  • Proactive

    Great site which is extremely detailed. Congratulations on putting together a great resource that needs to be spread abroad. Unfortunately there are some people who cannot be convinced due to their intrinsic need to attach themselves blissfully to a political party without reasoning or rationale on any matter. I come from a family traditionally from the right but am concerned by the type of people who they seem to be attracting, especially in the last decade and a half. Thank goodness I also came from a family who encouraged an open mind, which included developing our own political leaning.

  • Anonymous

    Thanks for the kind words Proactive. You are spot on – blindly following an ideology is a very dangerous path to go down. It’s what brought us to the worst excesses of humanity over the last century. At the end of the day, we need to sit down and consider the facts and try not to blind ourselves by selectively ignoring those which don’t fit our worldview.

    On that note, I have yet to find an opponent to pricing carbon who actually has a clear rational argument. They always seem to descend into a blather of strawman arguments and name-calling. The political discourse in this country is a plaything of the Murdoch press. If only it weren’t so.

  • Silly boys

    “I have yet to find an opponent to pricing carbon who actually has a clear rational argument.” Thats cause you’re not listening son. Look at the polls. No one wants it. No one believes in it. Everyone is sick of you little uni activists with no responsibilities or experience. Time for you to practice what you preach. Open your ears and shut your trap for a while…

  • Anonymous

    Nothing but vile language. I still don’t see a cohrerent argument. I guess that’s because you lack one.

  • Machineboy

    Given there are only two options on the table for Australians to choose in terms of reducing their carbon emissions, every one with an opinion on Climate Change must fall into one of three groups.

    Group A) Either don’t care and/or don’t believe the science and/or for what ever reason don’t think they should contribute anything to the solution.

    Group B) Believe the science and understand the long term cost of not acting, would like to see change and think the most effective solution is to charge the polluters, therefore creating disincentives to carbon output and then re-investing the proceeds in new clean energy technology and from the same money raised from polluters reimburse most households ensuring they aren’t out of pocket.

    Group C) Believe the science and understand the long term cost of not acting, would like to see change and therefore propose to use tax revenue raised from families and small businesses that could otherwise be spent on hospitals and education to subsidise the polluters to reduce their emissions and pump into various carbon reduction schemes.

    Since both parties have similar reduction targets, and since there are only two options for those that believe the science, the rest of the discussion is essentially pointless crap. At the end of the day your are in A, B or C.

    The confusing aspect in the media is that those firmly in Group A (a particularly nasty bunch it seems) support Abbott. Why? Is it because they know that he really isn’t committed to his Group C plan? Or is it just to destabilise public opinion and hope for a train wreck? In fact given the poor support the Direct Action plan has from economists or any other non vested interest party, it would be curious if any right minded person put themselves in Group C.

    Perhaps some people are prepared to move groups because of what was said during an election campaign prior to the unforeseen political environment we find ourselves. But eventually let us hope people select their preferred Group based on it’s merits. Our children will live with the outcomes one way or the other long after the current crop of politicians have gone.

  • http://twitter.com/aussie_angel Annette R

    Why do you persist in using disparaging, insulting comments? You won’t win any fans, that way. Your statements are incorrect, as well. “No one wants it. No one believes in it.”? Why then…. did over 10,000 people turn up to the “say Yes” rallies in June? (See http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-06-05/thousands-say-yes-at-carbon-price-rallies/2746710 )

    You would do well to read the Gittins article Mindsphere listed above, too. It was very informative.

    I am 48 yrs old, too, FYI.

  • http://twitter.com/aussie_angel Annette R

    Very well said! Put me in group B. 

  • Steve

    Cheaper relatively, but still more expensive, absolutely. 

    You dont need a carbon tax to support the creation of a renewables industry. Tax benefits to organisations who work in this field would be more beneficial.

    Lastly, in order to achieve the required “abatement” targets we are going to be buying millions of dollars in carbon credits from other nations – essentially exporting our wealth. We will be paying other nations for using our own coal. How silly is that?

  • Steve

    I see the reverse. Im yet to see a rational argument to support a carbon tax. A tax which: returns money to polluters, returns money to end users, omits key areas of pollution generation (petrol), acts in isolation to the rest of the world, ignores our comparative advantage in natural resources, creates a huge new layer of bureaucracy. 

    It wont work. 

    Meanwhile there a number of environmental issues we actually have the *power* to resolve which are being ignored. 

    Environmentalism has been hijacked by a socialist wealth redistribution agenda. 

    The worst outcome will be the “once bitten, twice shy” effect this will have in sullying the good name of genuine environmentalists and environmental causes amongst the wider population. 

  • Anonymous

    Actually, if you look at the top producers of carbon in this country, they are the power producers. This tax is ultimately targeted at them. You need to change the relative cost equation so that they will make the long-term decision to invest in renewables instead of building another coal power plant. That’s the whole point of the price on carbon.

    Also, a carbon price is actually akin to a tax benefit because if you choose to go the renewables path you can sell your permits and come out ahead.

    To your last point – we also stand to gain by selling carbon credits too if we get in on the game early enough. Furthermore, as detailed here - http://www.carbontax.net.au/cost-of-not-implementing-carbon-tax/ - we will end up paying anyway if we do not implement a price on carbon.

  • Anonymous

    Hi Steve, I’ve already answered a comment of yours further up the page, but to your specific points here…

    Like I said earlier, it changes the relative equation for polluters.  Renewables are getting cheaper all the time, this tax merely speeds up that process. So these industries can go clean and still charge the same to end users, pocketing the difference. If that’s not an incentive then I don’t know what is. 

    Social wealth redistribution agenda? Howard got the middle to upper income segments in this country addicted to welfare. Labor’s merely bringing them back down to Earth as per the Henry review.

  • Proactive

    It’s a case of people cutting off their nose to spite their face, seriously. The biggest issue for people is their belief that Gillard lied. Gillard shows alot of restraint and maturity not getting into a slanging match with Abbott about his term “carbon tax”. It is actually called”giving him enough rope”. Let him dig his own hole too! It’s not revenue that benefits the govenment so therefore should not be classified as such. If people don’t get over there petty little “oh she hurt my feelings” attitude, our country is going to miss a major and essential reform. Thanks for broadening my perspective on this mindsphere.

  • Kundalini

    Tax Evasion is illegal.

    Tax Avoidance is legal, in fact it’s a national sport for business and this is why the big boys have tax lawyers and tax accountants on permanent staff.

    The “Bottom Line” is everything. It is worshipped. Anything will be done to make it healthier. If a price is put on carbon then those businesses affected will do everything to minimise if not delete it’s impact on the Holy Bottom Line. This may mean initially passing costs on to their customers BUT it will always come back to the national support of minimising costs and minimising tax.

    Minimising Tax. “This” is the purpose of all this. Enticing business to minimise their tax by cleaning up their act.

    It’s not rocket science. Anybody who has ever run a business knows this.

    Of course…it’s much easier to deal with if the tax isn’t there in the first place (wink wink)

  • Guest

    PSALM 2010-2011:FIRST BOOK OF GOVERNMENTJulia is the shepherd I did not want.She leadeth me beside the still factories.She restoreth my faith in the Liberal party.She guideth me in the path of unemployment for her party’s sake.Yea, though I walk through the valley of the bread line,I shall fear no hunger for her bailouts are with me.She has anointed my income with taxes,My expenses runneth over.Surely, poverty and hard living will follow me all the days of my life.And I will live in a rented home forever.I am glad I am Australian.I am glad that I am free.But I wish I was a dogAnd Julia was a tree. AMEN BROTHER!!

  • jesus123
  • jesus123

    the link below, the sham that is global warming