Carbon tax bill in Australia passes

Ex. SPLATTER CONTROL => http://current.com/community/93492489_project-censored-2012-release-more-us-sold...

The absolute BIGGEST PENIS is the one who can send the healthiest men to lose theirs in worthless wars. That is the "ULTIMATE POWER" of one man over another man.

That's why you see a Dick Cheney chortling, a George Walker Bush chuckling, a Donald Rumsfeld shrugging his shoulders. Their penises still throb with blood inside a woman. Or not.

Women LUST after men inside them who have that kind of power over other [lesser] men.

Such pleasure to men of power (and their women vicariously so) gives them their daily smarmy grin as they sit writing more memoirs telling why they had to do what they did, why your boys were in an Afghanistan or Iran, the patriotic chore and all that stuff, but it all boils down to them GETTING THEIR PECKERS PLEASED, REGULARLY and COMPLETELY.

Men like that are not the great men of war such as a Genghis Khan or George Patton or Hannibal riding elephants through impossible snowy passes. They are just filth not worthy to be on the bottom of anyone's shoes... who long ago discovered the rush they got from remote control deaths.

And you buy their books.

Jeffrey Dahmer sends your loved children to bleed. From their penis on the ground. Blood running down their cheeks like how on Christmas morning tears of joy ran down the little one's cheeks happy to have new toys.

You sent them under the command of Jeffrey Dahmer.

Get out. Get out of there. Or poison your child Christmas Eve.

I agree with actor Robert Loggia in Independence Day 1996 => "Get on the wire, tell them how to bring those sons of bitches down."

100 U.S. troops dispatched to Uganda by Obama? No surprise here just hearing about it. Thanks Rush.

SOON. GOOD TIMES. YOU ALL HANG IN THERE. SOON THE GOOD TIMES COME AGAIN. I CAN FEEL IT!!! CAN'T YOU?

http://www.carbontax.org/

It's not carbon trading:

"Why revenue-neutral carbon taxes are essential,
what’s happening now, and how you can help

The Obama Administration and Congress are being called upon to address 21st Century climate realities. In a carbon-constrained world, a permanent and increasing U.S. carbon tax is essential to reduce the emissions that are driving global warming.

■A carbon tax is a tax on the carbon content of fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas).
■A carbon tax is the most economically efficient means to convey crucial price signals and spur carbon-reducing investment. Our spreadsheet shows how fast emissions will fall.
■Carbon taxes should be phased in so businesses and households have time to adapt.
■A carbon tax should be revenue-neutral: government can soften the impacts of added costs by paying back the tax revenues (“dividends”) or reducing other taxes (“tax-shifting”).
■Support for a carbon tax is growing steadily among public officials; economists; scientists; policy experts; business, religious, and environmental leaders; and ordinary citizens.
■Proposals for cap-and-trade with offsets cannot deliver the needed emissions reductions. See the courageous EPA lawyers’ superb video, “The Huge Mistake” (YouTube)."

Thanks jan. We need more debate and action to implement something like this here. Personally, I just want to eliminate the need for carbon-based fuels and plastics altogether.

A most worthy and necessary goal.

...lol...they may as well put the final nail in the coffin...bloody kiwis, and we have to play 'em on their turf...thanks for that harry, I'll get back to ya later with a good bet and 20 point start...(smirk)...

Truth be told, I'm a NERVOUS WRECK!

...a good swig of wild turkey will fix it...GO THE WALLABIES...

Aw, don't worry, you shills can still love CO2. You just won't get away with the BS you spew anymore. And to answer your question... stay tuned, because at this pace if others follow we will see a much better world a lot sooner than staying with the dirty, unhealthy, unethical, selfish future you support.

thxs.

Absolutely old girl. So we'll be seeing less scaremongering stories from you of bad weather from now on then, eh? Ah yes, the world will be so much better now that Australians will have to pay more for just about everything, and their industry will be forced into moving abroad... great move!
You'll be laughing on the other side of your face when this tax is revoked in a year's time.

Happily, over here our government are a little more realistic. George Osborne recently openly admitted that air passenger duty (a green tax) is ‘fundamentally a revenue raising duty.’ Other green taxes are similarly misleading and do nothing to address the weather. These taxes are just a way of moving money around but will have the ultimate result of harming ordinary people.

It's a democracy only when convenient

How are we going to tell how much global warming is going to be reduced by this global warming tax trading scam?

Absolutely!

first it is not tax trading, it is a punitive tax if the polluters don't up grade their facilities, they won't have to pay as long as they upgrade.

Oh, many thanks for that. So, CO2 traps heat, like a blanket, and the more CO2 the warmer the world gets. Got it now.

But... when I look at September's global temperature anomalies I see this:

September 2011: +0.29 °C
Northern Hemisphere: +0.38 °C
Southern Hemisphere: +0.19 °C (notice how the southern hemisphere's temperature anomaly is lower in anticipation of Australia's carbon tax - see, this tax stuff really does work)

So yes, CO2 is cooking the planet, uh, and that's really bad. But then I think to myself, there's more atmospheric CO2 now than there was in, say 1998 and in 1998 global temperature anomalies were standing at +0.86 °C, so that's a fair old drop of -0.57 °C between 1998 and today. Bummer!!! So adding more CO2 isn't heating the planet like it's supposed to be doing. Is CO2 not working now or something? I get so confused...

I can understand how you would get confused, but no sir, don't avoid the questions.

Does co2 contribute to the green house effect, does it trap heat?

Exactly, it is just a way for them to make money without actually doing anything.

Educate yourself about what it is and how it works first. Then maybe you can ask questions.

The fact they only think it is about "weather" already proves it is useless responding to them. Same run around garbage.

well maybe on this thread on this day, they might listen to reason...

Interesting thought! At some point the CO2 gets thick enough => it acts as a cold temperature conductor bringing the cold of Outer Space down to the earth's surface eh?

=> Thanks. We're about to become a block of ice.
=> Thanks. We're about to become a block of ice.
=> Thanks. We're about to become a block of ice.
=> Thanks. We're about to become a block of ice.

The "greenhouse" effect is a poor name for what is actually an atmosphere effect. The atmosphere bares little resemblance to a greenhouse. The atmosphere has no lid, it allows heat to escape to space.
CO2 plays a part in the atmosphere. It absorbs and re-radiates energy, (it does not trap heat) and will, as part of our atmosphere, help to regulate the temperature of the planet. Notice the word regulate? CO2 also helps to cool the planet, not keep it cosy and warm, or increasingly warmer.
The first few ppm of CO2 is relevant, adding more has little effect, and any added effect will be offset by feedbacks which have all been shown to be negative.
CO2 cannot heat the planet to a dangerous (or even uncomfortable) level, it didn't in the past and won't in the future.
Imagine this; if you put a curtain over a window the room becomes darker. Add more and the room becomes darker still. But there comes a point where adding more curtains will have zero effect on the light. CO2 has virtually reached its saturation point, adding more will have a virtually undetectable effect.

Increasing CO2 did not make your planet warmer, or your weather worse. The increases of atmospheric CO2 happened as a consequence of a natural warming.
So, there you go; a reply to your question, a rare thing to see here in Current.

It's just the government taking money from the people end of story

No, not end of story. Corporations paying this aren't people. Or do you believe that now? What side are you really on? As if you care about "the people" having their health compromised by dirty toxic pollution that takes MORE money from them from CANCER, ASTHMA and other diseases, or the effects we see now on land and water due to climate change which is real regardless of what you "believe." This is a mechanism to spur investment in technologies that will one day, hopefully soon, wean us off the stuff that is KILLING US. But all you know is your own biased ideology that you will defend even if you don't know why you do it. I would move people like you to places like Bangladesh, or Tuvalu, or even Alaska, so you would have to live with the consequences of this like those peoples are now doing. Maybe not being in the comfy confines of your own life you would have a better understanding of what we are dealing with here. Oh, but wait, all you know about is "weather." And you expect to look credible discussing this?

If the corporations are the ones paying the taxes as you say, then why are the people of Australia being taxed? They don't belong to the corporations.

I'm not against fighting pollution that's your auto-response whenever we bring up the fact that this whole thing has been a scam to get a new tax on the people.

Are you kidding me? You really are that clueless as to how this works and that the people are actually being taxed by those CORPORATIONS because they CHOOSE to pass that down to them instead of prioritizing their own finances to absorb it or investing in cleaner sources of energy to lessen the tax on themselves? And yet you come here to argue about it? Again, take some time to actually read what this is and what the words "revenue neutral" mean and then get back to me.

You mean to tell me that the government is just going to ALLOW these corporations to tax people because the government is what, unable to make these coporations invest in cleaner sources of energy?

This is lunacy, and who will regulate the rate at which these corporations decide that to tax the people of Australia? Oh right the government, which are automatically beholden the the corporations for things like campaign contributions and the like.

Sounds a bit like collusion if you ask me, but what do I know, right?

The fact that global warming promoters such as yourself are constantly railing against the evil corporations, yet you are completely prepared to assist your government to work towards their benefit just shows you how naive/disengenious the whole global warming promotion movement really is.

This is a load of bullshit and you know it. This bill may be sold as "taxing the corporations" but what makes you think that they will stop here if they can get away with this scam?

"When utilities, businesses or homeowners consume fossil fuels, they create pollution that has a societal cost; everyone suffers from the effects of pollution."

The economic principle of negative externalities is a tax on the people because people make up a society. The government of Austrailia has even been training children in schools to caculate how much carbon they emit so when they are older they will have to pay for it.

No wonder this is so unpopular with the people.

The only load of BS is your dead set attitude in arguing about something you really don't care about. And you didn't read about what this is did you? The government is making it revenue neutral regarding eliminating other taxes and upping pensions, but hell yes, corporations may try to abuse it which is why we need oversight as well. That is why other parts of this program especially regarding land management are important as well and could work to lessen the load. And in my view, time limits regarding transitions. What the hell would you suggest otherwise? Oh wait I forgot, you don't think there is anything wrong to begin with! And you are full of it because it isn't me who is supporting anything but a liveable planet for future generations and having to go along with this in lieu of other schemes that I don't approve of FYI in order to make them DO SOMETHING because people like you sit on your ass doing nothing but whining about anything being done. Don't sit there making those of us who are trying to do something way beyond when it should have been addressed out to be the bad guys. If more people were proactive in demanding companies do better or refusing their business because they cared as well, they might move faster and this would not be necessary. This is in part OUR FAULT as well.

So let me get this straight: corporations colluding with governent against the people in the name of fighting pollution/carbon whatever, which you admit is a system that is wide open to corruption, and there seems to be no system in place to prevent this corruption?

And we're supposed to just assume that these corporations are going to do the right thing because, uh, because corporations have always done the right thing or are we just supposed to expect that they are going to do the right thing if it's for a good of society?

Ok, and how does this actually stop the corporations from polluting because I seemed to have missed that part.

EXACTLY!!! WILL OF THE PEOPLE SHALL PREVAIL AGAINST THE VERY GATES OF HELL, OR, GATES THE BILL IN HELL, OR EVERYONE WHO SWALLOWS THAT JUNK IS GONNA DIE, AND JOIN BILL GATES IN HELL!!!

Thanks for the thought out reply;

I doubt you. I doubt you understand the complexity of all the variables that are involved in the climate. Certainly the greenhouse metaphor may be poor, but the curtains analogy bares no resemblance to the physical properties of any climate variables. And at least the greenhouse metaphor addresses how the atmosphere allows solar radiation through while preventing solar radiation from leaving.

The curtains on the other hand are not co2, and there aren’t sheets of co2, and it is not meant to be the atmosphere because it would prevent solar radiation from warming the surface. The curtains are not the effect because saturation implies an overburden. They don’t even imply the “abundant” characteristic of saturation because that means an overflow. Rather, the use of curtains is a weak imagination to highlight an interpretation of data aka.irrelevancy. Any analogy could have been used, like the visual difference between a stack of 65040 books or a stack 65041 books, a drop of water in a swimming pool, but like curtains, neither bare any resemblance to the climate variables being discussed.

[The "greenhouse" effect] notice how greenhouse has quotation marks surrounding it.

When climatogoists say "greenhouse" they also add "effect." Meaning like curtains, it should be taken as descriptive and not as a complete and accurate metaphor, (although the greenhouse is a far more appropriate than curtains blocking light.) But yet the statement of [little resemblance] asks the reader to assume that what climatologists are arguing is the earth is exactly like a real greenhouse. That is flatly untrue. The science proving global warming is based on many experiments that produced tons of data that was reviewed, tested, and challenged by scientist of many different fields over the span of 60 years,

So either the respondent is deliberately arguing the absurd implications of a greenhouse to make an easy straw man argument, or the respondent doesn’t understand the topic.

IceKat, you once argued:
[“can we really be wise to blame the recent increase of man's portion of a benign essential trace gas”]. (Note the use of gas, and not gases).

Well my question is can it really be wise to doubt the cumulative reviewed data based on one’s limited understanding and access to that data?

Thanks for the thought out reply pt. 2

[first few ppm of CO2 is relevant, adding more has little effect will be offset by feedbacks which have all been shown to be negative. ]
Huh?
Does the addition CO2 have little affect, or is the additional effect offset by ....."what"
Or just re-write the sentence.

Furthermore:
Define feedback?
Assuming you define feedback it should answer the following questions.
Is feedback the results of a test? If so what tests?
Is feedback a tangible variable in the atmosphere? If so what variables?

[which have all been shown to be negative.]
Negative what?
What was being tested? Additional CO2? the offset? both? and under what conditions?

[CO2 has virtually reached its saturation point]
What is that saturation point? And saturating how?

You obviously have little understanding of the topic. All those questions you ask - why don't you already know the answers? Why are you disagreeing with things you obviously don't even begin to understand?
I suggest you go and read some scientific literature. It seems to me that I could spend hours writing here but that would get me absolutely nowhere.

"Does the addition CO2 have little affect, or is the additional effect offset by ....."what" "
There you go. Don't you understand feedbacks?

"Or just re-write the sentence."
Why? The sentence makes perfectly good sense as it is!

Let's go back to a sentence of mine which you quoted, “can we really be wise to blame the recent increase of man's portion of a benign essential trace gas”.
You respond, "Note the use of gas, and not gases". Did I get something wrong? Is CO2 now gases? Or are you insinuating all gases produced by man are wrecking the climate?
The discussion was about CO2, of course other gases are implicated, especially water vapour, but you never hear of politicians and extremists thoughts on regulating water vapour!

I'm not sure what your aim is here, but if you really had an interest in the subject of man's influence on the climate, you would have already done decades of reading and therefore find no need to ask the questions you did.

Oh, and the curtains analogy - it describes exactly the fact that CO2's influence on planetary temperature is limited. Adding more and more CO2 will not cook your planet.
The atmosphere is not capable of retaining endless amounts of heat. Had that been the case the planet would have fried centuries ago.

["All those questions you ask - why don't you already know the answers? Why are you disagreeing with things you obviously don't even begin to understand? "]

I ask the question because you made the assertion.
Proof Please

Sir, I rest my reasoning on this question :

"can it really be wise to doubt the cumulative reviewed data based on "your" limited understanding and access to that data?"

that being said:

I have given significant attention to your previous post and I am aware that you argue
co2 and heat are not related.

but that has changed somewhat to:
co2 regulates temperature (need explanation on exactly how co2 does that, according to you, certainly evidence and not curtains)
and:
on only a small amount of co2 regulates it

However, you still hold that there is no connection between co2 and the current weather pattern. And you still try imply the science that proves global warming is only about co2, while not acknowledging the impact of other gases and pollutants.

but that is a "shift"
because it does show you understand certain points of scientific fact that can not be denied, this kind of thought shift is known as reasoning.

Again, credible proof or you are just ranting, which means it is very reasonable to doubt anything you say.

I hope to continue this discussion on a different thread.

But I will read any post you make here, without comment.

BTW: Why? The sentence makes perfectly good sense as it is!
["and any added effect will be offset by feedbacks which have all been shown to be negative. ]

If this is true, then I have your premission to test "your good sense" out.

Good day sir.

So, how soon before we start to see good weather returning to the planet?

It's going to be 80 degrees, sunny with a light breeze everywhere on earth, all year round before you know it! Just like San Diego!

Ah yes, just like it used to be before man opened a factory. I can't wait for endless good weather once more, just like the good old days before CO2 ruined everything

Exactly.They still have a choice to avoid it. But the rich whiners who place more importance on their coal mine profits and political ideology as they toxify the planet without caring who or what it kills will say anything to make this look like it is the end of the world. This can be the beginning of a much better one and it's about damn time. Shamefully, the U.S. is still stuck in the 18th Century.

"Shamefully, the U.S. is still stuck in the 18th Century."

Some of it's inhabitants are too judging by the comments here.

Nice to see you're into self deprecating humor.

"IceKat:Nice to see you're into self deprecating humor." - JanforGore

Shame you haven't yet learned the fact that I am English and reside in England, United Kingdom!!!
For you, in simple, easy to understand terms: IceKat is not a resident of the U.S..
I have taken numerous fossil fuelled flights there, though, and have to admit I have met many nice people during my travels so my statement was certainly not targeted at the majority.

For you, in simple, easy to understand terms: IceKat is not a resident of the U.S..
An also not a resident of Australia'

"An also not resident of Australia'" - jackshin

Well observed... the spelling lets it down though, as does the lack of a point.

ah that was sweet...

I wasn't talking about the location but the century. So if all you are going to do is piss in here, excuse me.

As for the location, IceKat must work for BP.

That can be the only reason why I write the things I do, I must be being paid by an oil company...! It is sad to see people are still using that stupid outdated response.
When are people like you going to grow up and start coming up with a new and adult way to reply to messages that don't agree with your religious beliefs?
So who is paying you, Greenpeace, WWF, Al Gore himself?

One day you might just make sense. I won't hold my breath.

Who else would come here to only post about this one topic and have an avatar about loving carbon dioxide? I call it like I see it. Don't care what you think about it either. Making fun of it isn't going to change my mind either. Also -- fuck al gore... and I'm an atheist. What you incorrectly refer to as religion is called science to the rest of us.

Oh I see... I'm supposed to write about all topics to have any credibility here? Maybe I only write about this topic because I happen to know and understand the topic, whereas I couldn't give a hoot about the other topics on this forum. It might help if others only commented on topics where they actually held some knowledge instead of blurting out all kinds of crap that they have absolutely no understanding of!
I don't make fun of the topic, it's the idiots and scientifically illiterate I make fun of here, but believe me, I don't waste a lot of time doing it - I don't have much time for fools.

I have absolutely no intention of changing your mind, I couldn't give a stuff what you believe. Unlike others here, I actually do respect the views of others.
And as for the avatar, being environmentally friendly, I understand the fact that CO2 is essential for life and therefore I happen to love CO2.
Once you understand the science - and I mean real science - you soon begin to understand how these things actually work.
Reading endless re-posts written by extremists for extremists will teach you nothing, you'll just end up being sucked in by the propaganda, you see that daily here.

Enjoy your climate, it's the best one you could have hoped for.

As someone who does indeed follow the science behind climate change, I would have to disagree with your assertion that you understand the topic. Claiming that those who disagree with you are scientifically illiterate equates to you charging the top climate scientists from around to globe with not being able to understand the science as well as you do. That is laughable.

The feigned "controversy" against human-created climate change is also very simple to understand. Oil profiteers love money. As for the science behind it, the overwhelming majority (as in almost all of them) of real climate scientists agree that climate change is man-made. That is why I accept it. I could not care less what politicians say about it. I care about what the scientists say about it... and not the ones in the pocket of the oil industry.

You might want to try to confuse the situation by trying to make it seem like it isn't true that the vast majority of scientists accept that climate change is man-made, and you might even confuse some people with such propaganda. But as someone who looks for himself, I know what scientists are saying. You are not going to trip me up or give me a false sense of reality. You love carbon dioxide just like others who glorify carbon dioxide in this "debate". It is a propagandistic talking point that I've already heard a million times. It is not a credible claim for you to make that you just love carbon dioxide because it's essential for life. Why not heart H2O? Why not just Carbon? Specifically you "love" carbon dioxide because of this issue. There is no other reason for you to heart carbon dioxide. There is absolutely no question whatsoever that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. None. Carbon dioxide is great, but too much in the atmosphere isn't good, no matter what you say.

No, you are not credible because of the things you say, which I well know to be regurgitation of propaganda. I don't guess that it's propaganda. I know it. There is no question.

While it is only my opinion that you profit from the oil industry in some way that motivates you to confuse the issue, it is an indisputable fact that most scientists agree that climate change is man-made.

If climate change is man-made, then man must have been responsible for the entire history of climate change. Since the climate has never stopped changing, man must have been responsible for all the weather that ever happened. Sure!

"equates to you charging the top climate scientists from around to globe" Ah no. The top climate scientists are only so described by themselves, and a very small (in number) bunch they are too. If you were really into this subject you would by now have a mass of scientific papers that counter the alarmist 'scientists' predictions littering your desk and floor, and probably other places too. 'Scientists' do not hide, withhold, manipulate, change or lose data. Sadly, those activities are rife within certain circles.

Thanks for your opinion that I profit from the oil industry, I understand you have to assert that due to a lack of credibility in other areas, it is your last line of defence.

"Carbon dioxide is great, but too much in the atmosphere isn't good, no matter what you say." I absolutely agree. CO2 at the moment consists of less than 0.04% (currently 389ppm) of our atmosphere, man contributes around 3% of that. Humans can live happily in 1000ppm, and do very often inside our own homes. 10,000ppm is deemed safe for an 8 hour period. While I agree with you that there is a level of atmospheric CO2 which probably won't be pleasant for humans to live in, I think we have a hell of a way to go before reaching that level. At 389ppm the planet is more than safe, and has even been described as being CO2 deficient by scientists not recognised by you.

"The first few ppm of CO2 is relevant, adding more has little effect, and any added effect will be offset by feedbacks which have all been shown to be negative. "
according to kat that [sentence makes perfectly good sense as it is!]

nox, maybe you can help out, does the sentence make sense to you at least grammatically....in particular is feedback the cause of the offset, or is it the information gotten from the experiments?

"Claiming that those who disagree with you are scientifically illiterate equates to you charging the top climate scientists from around to globe with not being able to understand the science as well as you do. That is laughable. " ....well said

'I would have to disagree with your assertion that you understand the topic."
I concur

And so can it really be wise to doubt the cumulative reviewed data based on "icat's" limited understanding and access to that data?"

[Real science] needs real proof

No, just holding those accountable for the damage they do to this planet.

it is either that are lawsuits, but don't worry it probably won't affect rupert mordoch much

No, the polluters that invest in new technology will profit more in the long-run.
That's why they call it investment.

...well, Jan, you know I have enormous respect for you and your passion regarding this subject of climate change, but what you see above is not the whole picture, and not that simple for Australia...there are so many things involved here besides just addressing climate change for us...and it's a list longer than I have the strength to discuss...but suffice to say, we voted in this govt on the promise that there would be no carbon tax without first involving the people, a chance to have a say, and rigorous debate involving small business, etc etc etc, and numerous other parts of the community on the repurcussions of such a tax...she got in on a lie, and we begged for a chance to have a say, but were denied at every turn...and the compensation, well, i won't go there...once again, I love your passion on this subject, and I agree that the issue needs to be addressed, but a country like ours, putting $23 a tonne on carbon, when even the massive polluters like China and India are not even anywhere near that promise, and locking in this legislation with no hopes to repeal, is not the way to go...all we wanted was a say, to just move on all of this, relative to how we compare with the rest of the world, ergo, volumes of emissions...we have, yrs before this, come ahead in leap and bounds in our contrubtions to respecting our environment...well, that's it...and like i said, my friend, nothing is ever that simple, however it looks...regards, Eden...

from what I read, the intended violators are " the biggest emitters" like "electricity generating firms, mining companies and heavy industry manufacturers. So the question is how is taxing energy pollutiors that services local communities have international relevance.

It is conceivable that small businesses may be affected, but using china or india as the standard by which other governments should measure their own energy policies is not unlike what bush did when he authorized waterboarding because the terrorist do worse.

Well the polluters have a choice- don't do it and make it easier for all. They can do the right/moral thing, but it always seems to be too much to ask of them. We wouldn't need these types of bills if they understood the huge consequences of what we are doing to this planet and moved towards that clean energy future that would profit all. I don't understand why people never get upset at the true culprits here. And though I yes, think this is a step in the right direction, I appreciate your civil way of expressing your opinion. Hopefully this will not be needed for long as your country and hopefully the world moves forward to a cleaner future. Stay well.

...well, as we all know, the big polluters just pass it on down to the ones that can least afford it...the electricity companies pass it down to the people; our bills are horrific with hundreds of thousands of the elderly and disadvantaged going to the wall...tax the mining companies, and the mining companies pass it on down to a whole range of industries, the truckies that transport the food - food prices have hit the roof and rising daily...yes, I agree, tax the big polluters, but unfortunately it doesn't stop there...I wish, Jan, there was a solution for us all, but it gets more complicated every day...thank you again, for always being so fair in reply...regards, Eden...

the question then is which cost do you want the elderly to pay, increased medical costs, or adjusted electric bills. Mind you, your almost suggesting that the polluters will continue with the pollution even with the tax. And even if the corporations comply, they will maintain the same rate as if they were being charged for it. Who is the bad guy here?

...just a cap on electricity bills, maaaaaaaaaaate...as to health care for the elderly...DER...everything is free, and thank HEAVENS FOR THAT, OR WE'D ALL BE HEARIN' A BELL TOLLING, BRING OUT YOUR DEAD...sorry for the caps, unintentional, but hey, my computer's on the blink...

well sir, someone still has to pay for the medical expenses, right, like the state through taxes. Look if I went any further with the argument, I'd drown in my assumptions, which I am on thin ice as it is.

I take your word that there are unintended consequences that may far out weigh the benefit.

However, every time they pass some tax, some regulation, it never fails, the right wing yell business will cease to exist. And yet, countries like Canada, England, Germany, and the US somehow survive. Meaning, at first there is no denying some business will suffer, but in a very short time loans, wages and prices adjust to reflect the new tax.

In this case, the fact that it is a punitive tax means that it is not meant to be a revenue stream for the state, but rather a legislative tool to get polluters to re-invest in the economy. At least that is what it seems to me. Ironicly, if the corporations were to comply, then the legislation would turn out to be a tax cut for everyone.

Frankly I wish the US, would have more of that kind of legislation.

...well, matey, thanks for the chat, but you're much smarter than me, and I'll quit now while I'm behind...I tend to go by that old adage..."it's better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak up and remove all doubt"...sincerely, Eden...

touchy, touchy,
but sure, next time I will ask for your permission to comment on your comment. friend.

...apart from Jan, who I have the utmost respect for, I must admit, I hesitated in venturing into a debate with someone who I don't know, meaning, you, Jack...I felt a faint stirring in my nether regions, that maybe I was punching above my weight in heading in your direction...it seems, my gut instinct was right, as usual...my comment to you was sincere, but I should know better on this site, as I've encountered lots like you, who find it amusing to post ungracious sarcastic remarks...you don't know much about Auzzies, do you, Jack...we say what we mean, but, have a good day, mate...

"it's better to remain silent and be thought a fool,"

lol, you responded...

I didn't mean to offend your sensibilities. But friend, I did concede my ignorance in the prior, prior statement, and your next reply did seem to me you were rubbing it in...so it seems I may have done to you another injustice. I apologize.

keeping on trucken'. mate,

...I refuse to argue with the grammatically challenged...spell check much...honey, ya need to use both hands on the keyboard...

"it's better to remain silent and be thought a fool,"

lol, you responded...again

"my comment to you was sincere"
So was my apology...

keeping on trucken' mate.