does it make a difference when the result is the same?
just proves you people are all style over substance

Edited by ricecrackers: 8/5/2014 04:26:35 PM

they're a poor substitute for personality and creativity

This is my personal favourite.

Your faux personality could do with a bit of creative substitution

The result isn't the same though. A price on carbon has the potential to reduce carbon emissions far more than an increase to the petrol excise.

How is it a green measure? Please explain what this is going to do to reduce our dependency on organic chemical compounds to solve our energy requirements? Is it somehow going to magically result in affordable and efficient alternative fuel technologies to spontaneously coagulate into the market? Is it going to be used to directly fund the alternative energy industry in any way? Or is it going to go straight into general revenue?

A price on carbon also hurts a lot of logistical systems nationwide. In such a big nation, logistics is the key to our survival.

I was never a fan of a carbon price. I'd support taxing fuel higher if and only if the revenues were directly used for renewable research. Currently, the carbon price goes to the generic pool of money which makes it a complete wrought.

[youtube]9HvE13HDvFQ[/youtube]

[youtube]L8vmOGalpxA[/youtube]

Just got back from a talk by Malcolm Fraser. Wow, what an intelligent, articulate man. I disagree with some of the things he did but he was incredibly insightful with what he had to say.

Couple of things he mentioned.

Bigotry is alive and well, he thought it died after fighting to get Vietnamese refugees accepted in Australia. He blames Labor for being scared of losing the remainder of their "redneck vote".

The Iraq war based on a lie.

ANZUS is a crock, and in technical terms has never been and never will be enforced.

Australia is not a sovereign state, the US base in Darwin and Pine Gap are a testament to that.

Australia (through Pine Gap) is complicit in breaking international law through the drones programme.

Australia does not have the nerve to question the US publicly on anything, even when the US kills two Australians through drone attacks.

America would (and has previously) back Indonesia before Australia. Key examples being the Indonesia-Malaysian conflict, and the Indonesian National Revolution. It is more important to keep them onside.

America has not always fought for freedom. For example the American-Philippines War, and the War against Native Americans.

Politicians today are hopeless as they know no life outside of politics, not mastering an outside trade or profession before enter parliament.

Preselection today is useless when there are cases of only one or get nominating, at least four or five good candidates in each branch are needed to weed out the bad ones.


Edited by imonfourfourtwo: 8/5/2014 09:31:33 PM

Yeah we get it, Fraser doesn't like America, America is bad, America owns Australia, blah blah blah. Intelligent, articulate man.

Yes and no with regards to reducing dependency on fossil fuels for cars.

If hypothetically petrol hit $3 a litre tomorrow within a year we'd have far more fuel efficient cars running about.

Compare cars in Europe which are currently getting twice the fuel economy of those here.

There it's all about an fuel efficient, low emitting vehicle. Here it's all about more torque, more power blah blah.

In some ways a massive rise in petrol costs could be counter-intuitively a good thing.

https://www.hyundaiusa.com/tucsonfuelcell/

http://www.dailybreeze.com/environment-and-nature/20140414/toyota-honda-and-hyundai-investing-big-in-hydrogen-fuel-cell-powered-cars

I really can't fathom how America having a base in Darwin and Pine Gap negates our sovereignty. That's like claiming a neighbours TV antenna shadow across your lawn violates your property rights.

To be honest, it really just sounds like more trendy America bashing.\:d/

Just like America stationing troops here in WW2 negates our sovereignty... right?

The whole point of the carbon price is it's supposed to hurt, it's supposed to encourage everyone to look at ways to reduce emissions.

I haven't found any information about how it goes into general revenue, do you remember where you read/heard that? I know a large chunk of the revenue disappears into the income tax cut they gave to lower income earners combined with additional subsidies to offset the pain for low income owners.

The whole thing isn't even fully implemented yet and I think some of the flaws of the current system would be fixed if the plan was allowed to be.

That's right but opposing criminals smuggling thousands of illegal entrants across our borders is xenophobia.

I wonder if it'd be ok if US troops came here on dilapidated boats...

He's also against the current Liberal party. He actually resigned after Abbott became leader and recently endorsed Sarah Hanson-Young.
[youtube]HDesl0_GYE8[/youtube]
I think he's spot on with that part. I'm not sure I 100% agree with his thoughts on the US and I wonder what the alternative would be for some of them...

Edited by mcjules: 9/5/2014 12:08:11 AM

And state sanctioned smuggling back to Indonesia is sound policy?

prove it

might force more people onto public transport you dope :roll:
the same way that car parking hikes achieve it

Edited by ricecrackers: 9/5/2014 12:13:56 AM

in summary, funny watching you lefties run around in circles. you dont even know what you stand for anymore other than "Tony Abbott bad, bad Abbott"
jokers

The drastically underfunded public transport system?

In Melbourne in the last month there have been two fires in the Richmond rail yard causing 8 of Melbourne's 15 rail lines to come to a grinding halt and stranding hundreds of thousands of commuters.

They've recently worked out that the city loop is having congestion issues. Their solution for that? Stop the Frankston, Pakenham, Cranbourne and Alamein lines from using the loop - this combined with that Glen Waverley and Sandringham don't use the loop either means that if you live in the south east and want to use the loop you have to get on the busiest and most overcrowded line in Melbourne - Lilydale/Belgrave.

Telling people to use PT instead is ridiculous when the state of Public transport is a farce.

Prove what?

Statement 1. The result isn't the same
Ok so a price on carbon is much more broad and affects a number of emission sources not just fuel. Because of that the result on how it affects the economy and where carbon emissions are reduced will almost certainly be different.

Statement 2. A price on carbon has the potential to reduce carbon emissions far more than an increase to the petrol excise.
As with statement 1, it affects a number of emission sources not just fuel. It has the potential to reduce carbon emissions more because, if the carbon price increases fuel prices by 3c a litre that covers anything that a fuel excise increase would do alone plus you get all the other stuff.

Anyway keep calling us lefties, it hurts so much :lol:

I used to think that only Afro was dumb enough to take ricecrackers pretty blatant bait.

You're better than this, mcjules.

not trying to hurt you. lefties call themselves lefties, i'm merely referring to your political persuasion by type.
what i am highlighting is how confused you all are and you really dont know what you stand for.

we're talking about fuel here by the way, nothing else. thats the subject matter.

you're now dancing around the point and muddying the waters with irrelevant detail as i can see you're in defensive mode.

take a look at yourselves and ask what you really are about rather than blindly following whatever youth radio or the ALP/Greens and their media sycophants tell you what to think.

:lol: embarrassing your brethren

better call them into a closed door meeting

People can't decide if I'm green, pink, red, left, right or a racist, ageist, WASP misogynist.

I'll be sure to bring it up at the next meeting though.

Going to try and provide evidence or does that go against your code of stupidity?

These cars will all be imports into Australia, we won't be producing any (which I have no problem with). The vast majority of the cars that are on the road that contribute to the problem are owned by people who can't afford to purchase a new car. So how do you get these cars off the road? Or do you consign these people to the scrap heap? If someone has to make the choice between buying fuel for their car (at $3/litre that is $180 to fill most cars, twice what it is today) or buying food, clothing etc. Our public transport cannot cope with that sort of increase in demand, neither can it facilitate people getting to where they need to go. It would probably also kill the taxi industry, or at least make it a very unattractive business to get into with low margins, eliminating another form of transport.

Unless you are planning on providing every low income household with a new low emission car I can't see this as being anything other than very detrimental in general.

I appreciate that you actually have a point though :)

you live in a town of 1 carriage trains
i think there's room to move without breaking the bank, by um... adding an extra carriage :idea: