That is, its a user pays system
This is regardless of whether a fuel exercise is retained or scrapped
Should Petrol & Diesel Fuel Have an Air Pollution Tax & a Carbon Tax?
Boogerman on 13/03/2022 - 12:49
Poll Options
- 59Yes
- 151No
Comments
- 1
- 2
Yes and yes, EVs are the future.
Da futura isn't today.
There isn't enough lithium to replace all the ICE in the world.
Lithium isn't the end all. Perhaps taxes could shape our behaviours in ways beyond simply switching to lithium, such as greater effort in increasing efficiencies in logistics, making us reconsider commuting (more wfh, etc), more research into alternative fuels and battery tech, etc. You're a bit one dimensional.
Perhaps taxes could shape our behaviours in ways beyond simply switching to lithium
People don't have to worry about taxes to change their spending behaviour.
The rise in oil, wheat and fertiliser prices will ensure that people get rekt in 2022.
The price of lithium or EV will be the last thing š¦šŗ think about this š.
making us reconsider commuting (more wfh, etc), more research into alternative fuels and battery tech, etc.
Btw. I like disruptive technologies and WTH.
I wouldn't mind if something came along and killed off yesterday's technology as long I can invest in it.
@afoveht: So how does taking even MORE of my money enable me to buy a vehicle that I already can't afford?
@EightImmortals: More one dimensional thinking.
Perhaps ask rektrading - but I suspect he'll just tell you to get a better job and make better investments.
@afoveht: "Perhaps taxes could shape our behaviours"
Spoken like a true control-freak marxist.
Top U.S. āScientistsā Call for Draconian UN Social Engineering
http://thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/14584-top-usā¦
OP is obviously unaware that these fuels are already taxed very heavily !!!!
That's why our petrol is much more expensive that the US
Even states levy a fuel excise on petrol
They make so much money from this fuel excise that the same states are discouraging use of electric cars!Diesel is used more in the country by farmers where electric cars are just not viable so that' a definite No No
The states don't levy fuel excise - they were constitutionally barred from doing so. Only the feds tax fuel.
What was QLD doing originally to make it 20 cents under the original price of other states? Now that is a dream.
maybe first our government could stop subsidizing the fossil fuel industry.
agree.
and help make alternatives more affordable!Thats so funny
Its the renewables that are subsidized so heavily all around the worldThe pundits claiming renewable energy is cheaper overlook the fact that its the heavy subsidies that make them cheaper.
Also: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/sep/17/coaliā¦
I'd happily divert most/all govt funding away from fossil fuels into renewables for the environmental benefits alone. None of any of this is going to matter if we don't have a planet left to drive around.
Money for fossil fuel āsubsidiesā comes from ā¦ wait for it ā¦ THE SALE OF FOSSIL FUELS!!
Compare that with MASSIVE TAXPAYER FUNDED āgreenā subsidies
"None of any of this is going to matter if we don't have a planet left to drive around."
BOOGA BOOGA!
Not one climate catastrophe predicted by the āexpertsā has ever occurred. Not one. And people like Obama and Al Gore continue to buy waterfront homes.
@Quantumcat: Islands like Tuvalu are extremely low lying and have, for centuries, been subject to erosion from normal weather and cyclones.
@iCandy: What's your source? And whats your definition of catastrophic? Is the bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef leaving thousands of square kilometres of previously thriving wildlife without a home not considered catastrophic? What about the islands in the pacific that are disappearing? What about the 1 in 100 year floods that are now happening ever 2-3 years? Pretty sure there are people on this forum who would argue that the impact of the recent floods was catastrophic. Anyway, there's three.
@hornoscous: Al Gore and Obama have bought oceanfront houses. Banks would not lend to buyers of oceanfront land if climate alarm was a thing. Oceans rise and fall as ice melts (happens ever Summer) and then ices up again. The reefs always die off in parts and then regenerate - itās what reefs do. Australia has always had floods - what caused the floods over 100 years ago if it was climate change??? Tuvalu is an extremely low lying island that is losing land to cyclones etc, just like every body of land is open to from normal weather and erosion.
Anyway, thereās six.Al Gore and Obama have bought oceanfront houses. Banks would not lend to buyers of oceanfront land if climate alarm was a thing.
Both Gore and Obama have sufficient money for it not to matter if their house is worth zero in 20 years. Theyāll enjoy it now and write it off later.
Banks keep lending for the same reason. They reckon they can get enough repayments back that they wonāt have to lose much when the worst happens. In 10 years itāll be half paid off and the property only needs to be worth half for their interest to be covered. .
I'd happily divert most/all govt funding away from fossil fuels into renewables for the environmental benefits alone.
Spoken like a true leftist. Make sacrifices with other people's money, but very unlikely to make cutbacks of your own.
How about you lead by example by cancelling your energy service and living off renewables, or maybe just one step at a time like only charging your phone once a week?
Point is, if fossil fuels suddenly ceased, I very much doubt you'd embrace it with open arms when you can't even reliably heat your bedroom or power your lights.
None of any of this is going to matter if we don't have a planet left to drive around.
Peddling fear porn into your message is exactly who so many people are sceptical of climate activism. The progressives warn of impending doom all the time, it's hard to know how I'm going to die in the end.
"Get vaccinated or you'll die a long horrible death"
"Evil white Christians will make it illegal to be gay!"
"Fossil fuels will make the world go BOOM!"
"Look what the evil man with guns did. Make all guns illegal!"
It's exhausting when they spread this much misinformation.
@SlavOz: Here's some more lefty propaganda for you then, you seem to like it so much: https://youtu.be/VF_OkBwVcFY
@JownehFixIT: lol crappyjordies is just a progressive wannabe Ben Shapiro or Milo Yionopollaus. Nothing he says is funny or enlightened.
Notice how he always talks with a goofy voice to make people think he's funny.
@SlavOz: Cool way to disregard the entire content of the vid, bro.
FYI no one wants to be Shapiro or Yiannopoulos
if fossil fuels suddenly ceased
no-one is suggesting they should "suddenly cease". People want a structured and orderly exit from consumption of fossil fuels where better alternatives exist - which is, electricity generation and passenger cars.
People want a structured and orderly exit from consumption of fossil fuels
But my point is that we don't have anything as reliable as fossil fuels right now. So any systemic effort to phase them out will require a sacrifice in our everyday reliability. That might mean the occasional cold shower, empty supermarket shelves, or a life support machine that suddenly loses power.
If that happens, the climate activists probably won't put up with it for very long. Everyone's an advocate for green energy as long as it doesn't affect them personally and they get to play with taxpayers money. When it comes to their own sacrifices, they cower away very quickly.
@chuq: How is it dribble? In the real world, there are consequences for policies that often stretch down to regular citizens. Thinking you can just enact global change in parliament is a childish fantasy.
It's not a mystery why climate activism is so prominent among young adults with very little real world experience. Thankfully, they tend to grow out of these views as they get older and wiser.
@SlavOz: Because its the same old shit you hear from RWNJs. No idea who you're trying to convince by repeating it here, or what you get out of it.
@chuq: If you're hearing the same arguments a lot, then maybe it's because they make sense that so many people adopted them. Maybe try countering them instead of just dismissing them as ideological talking points.
You're basically saying "why brush my teeth twice a day, everyone says that". No shit, everyone says it because it's a good idea, not because of some conspiracy to destroy the planet.
@SlavOz: Don't worry, I've countered these kinds of comments repeatedly in the past, I've also found that countering them is a waste of time since the comments come from people who have a weird anti-EV agenda which they blindly follow even when presented with factual information.
the comments come from people who have a weird anti-EV agenda which they blindly follow even when presented with factual information.
Bit ironic given that I just presented you with multiple real-life implications of abandoning fossil fuels and you've just ignored them as "dribble".
Seems like you're the one with a weird agenda that you're blindly following even when presented with counter information. I mean, you can't even admit that renewable energy is less reliable than fossil fuels. You're just sticking to "but it's better because muh global warming!"
@SlavOz: Because they've been repeatedly mythbusted. And you're purely a troll.
I mean, you can't even admit that renewable energy is less reliable than fossil fuels
Well I've been living with reliable electricity in a region which has run on 100% renewables for some time, so why would I believe something that is disproven by my actual, lived experience?
Because they've been repeatedly mythbusted
Mind pointing me to some of these mythbusts? Is there a scientific consensus on how much global warming is attributed to man-made causes, given that the planet has been warming and cooling for centuries?
Providing some acrual evidence would go a long way.
why would I believe something that is disproven by my actual, lived experience?
I can't believe I need to say this - because the world is bigger than you. What works for chuq doesn't necessarily work for all 7 billion people. Then you factor in industrial and commercial operations which have massive power requirements. Your supermarket shelves would go empty very quickly if we switched to renewables in their current state.
@SlavOz: The Tesla Big Battery is more reliable and faster to respond than coal fired or gas plants.
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2018/12/05/south-australias-teslā¦Never mind the $40mil in grid stabilization costs saved. That was in its first year of operation, and almost four years ago.
Chuck a few more of them around the country, more solar, wind, etc. and we're sweet.
@SlavOz: They donāt āgrow out of these viewsā. They may refine them as they age, but wonāt suddenly change to thinking that fossil fuels are the way to go. Theyāll recognise we canāt just suddenly stop using fossil fuels but will recognise that we can easily transition away from gem.
all the old dudes in govt making policy are products of a bygone era of profit making without consideration for sustainability of the planet.
@Euphemistic: Actually, it's quite well observed that young people (particularly university students) lean disproportionately towards left-wing policies but tend to 'switch sides' as they get older. It happens in every generation. Once they start working, earning a good income, and struggling with everyday problems, they realise that transgender pronouns or cars that exhaust unicorn farts aren't actually that important.
Sure they might always believe that fossil fuels are bad. I don't think even the right denies that. But the belief that renewables are just as reliable and should be widespread forced onto the world is a very narrow minded one that they will eventually let go.
But the belief that renewables are just as reliable and should be widespread forced onto the world is a very narrow minded one that they will eventually let go.
Renewables are gaining traction and support. Just check out how many houses (of older people that are now conservative according to you) have solar panels on them. These are also the people recognising the EVs are worth having and they also have the money to purchase them.
@Euphemistic: Dude, I have solar panels as well. They save you money and add value to your home. It's hardly a prayer to the Church of Green, nor will you see me disconnecting my energy service and hoping the whole world does the same.
@SlavOz: Has a feeling youād come back with that. So renewables are better for the planet and save you money, but require an upfront investment.
Fossil fuels are only going to increase in price. Major corporations are divesting from them for a reason.
@Euphemistic: Absolutely. There will come a time when fossil fuels become uneconomical and corporations will start to innovate with reliable renewables.
Like I've always said, the free market will solve this problem much better than the government can. Whatever the government seems to touch just turns to shit. Unfortunately too many "greenies" are usually anti-capitalist.
If and when fossil fuels become too costly, or society starts facing serious threats to our survival, corporations will jump on the chance to solve that problem. Until then, we shouldn't be forcing their hand prematurely. Let the market decide.
@SlavOz: We need a combination of government controls and corporate innovation. Left unchecked, corporations will continue to pollute and damage the environment.
@SlavOz: They donāt add that much value into your home.They are so common on a lot of homes,it is neither here nor there.All they are to a prospective buyer, is a bit of a sweetener, nothing else.
Not saying your wrong.. but overseas lots of fossil fuel powers plants are unprofitable and closing down.
Don't be afraid to say Amayzingone is wrong. New-build renewables are cheaper, full stop. https://www.csiro.au/en/news/news-releases/2020/renewables-sā¦
They also make our household power prices cheaper. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-03/renewables-make-powerā¦
We are talking about Australia after all. I won't argue that renewables aren't heavily subsidised overseas, they may well be. Good on them. But it sure as hell isn't the case here.
"first our government could stop subsidizing the fossil fuel industry."
ROTFLMAO
FYI the fossil fuel industry is subsidising the govt!
When a tax is not a tax, a subsidy not a subsidy: Leftist ORWELLIAN assault on language
Orwell wouldnāt have been surprised by the way these twisted new usages are now so heavily endorsed by leftists/warmists!
Oh and the fossil fuel industry subsidising the government is a huge part of the problem too. You don't think that has a huge impact on policymaking every single day? "This is coal! Don't be afraid!"
For slow learner leftist m*rons … heres' what a REAL, GENUINE ARTICLE, subsidy looks like …
Now Thatās a SUBSIDY!
http://www.cfact.org/2014/12/05/shady-circumstances-cloud-huā¦
Wow. The Committee For a Constructive Tomorrow has received funding from ExxonMobil, Chevron, as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars from foundations associated with Richard Mellon Scaife (a now-deceased billionaire contributor to the Republican Party and right-wing think tanks, one of the most influential men behind the American conservative movement).
There is no way the tonne of big oil money dropped on this web site and its co-founder and executive director would EVER influence what they write and publish. Zero chance. Might as well have linked an article from Shell PLC.
Pretty clever how the name reads cfact so it's like they're spreading truth though. Points for that.
All the alarmism aside, I would prefer my tax money going towards technologies that don't burn dirty and add to local and global pollution. Investment now in more solar, wind, batteries would be cheaper, more sustainable, and obviously cleaner than building new coal and gas plants from now on.
But it's cool, feel free to keep CaPiTaLiSiNg WoRdS to get your big oil points across :-D
With $BILLIONS wasted on policies based on FAILED climate model forecasts, we need to ask a lot of questions about āthe scienceā
ANOTHER BLATANT WARMIST LIE: Fossil fuel āsubsidiesā are actually rebates on MASSIVE TAXES paid from profits.
Renewables however …
I am more than OK with this idea!
We also need to start taxing for EV charging using non renewable energy sources and per kilometer for EV road use as currently their share of fuel excise (paying for infrastructure etc) is pretty much a tax loophole that is unfairly subsidising people who are able to drop at a minimum $60k+ on a practical EV at the cost of everyone else. Moving to a more sustainable model should be a cost bourne fairly (different to equally!) by all, not just by kicking the bill down the socioeconomic ladder.Kinda agree with you, but donāt bring in EV road taxes yet. We need incentives to get ICE off the roads. Lower cost of running is a good way to do that. Maybe bring in km based usage when EV is at more like 30-40% of the fleet.
Yeah
Just like they did with LPG which is a much cleaner burning fuel
John Howard promised LPG would be much cheaper than petrol and look at the diminishing difference.Unfortunately governments will always find different ways to tax motorists
Even to the detriment of saving our environmentlook at the diminishing difference.
I saw LPG this morning at half the price of ULP.
What's with all this insanity!? Who wants more taxes, taxation is theft!
Taxation is theft? Seriously? Iād rather pay taxes for roads, healthcare and education than have corporations run it for us and end up like the USA where people go bankrupt from healthcare or spend a dozen years payimg back student loans.
Totally in agreement there should be a fairly bourne road tax for all vehicles.
This is regardless of whether a fuel exercise is retained or scrapped
I certainly don't want lazy fuel
I pay for my fuel to go boom boom boom, lemme hear you say wayo!
You don't have to wait for the government to force a new tax if you feel like paying more right now.
Not unless they use it to provide incentives, rebates and discounts for going electric and make it actually affordable to switch. The government has wasted enough of our money towards rorts and their mates pockets as it is.
Id rather they taxed corporations and made them pay for anti pollution measures.
motor vehicles are big emitters, but joe public is slowly getting the idea (with rising prices helping) that EVs are the way to go. The more budget friendly models we have, the more uptake there will be. We are still in early adopter āmust have the flashiestā mode despite other countries making big moves toward EVs.
"EVs are the way to go."
NO WAY
Not at $50,000 MINIMUM a pop.
I'm for sustainability. That will come at a cost. And that cost will manifest in increased grocery and good prices because they will absorbed the logistics cost, including petrol and pollution tax.
To think that tax will just impact who drives a petrol powered vehicle is utterly short sighted
The cost is largely up front but ongoing costs of sustainable practices would likely be lower overall. Companies are all for lowering costs, but the decision is more difficult when upfront costs are involved.
Simple things like lowering energy costs through switching to led lighting are expensive initially, but save money long term. Unfortunately itās easier to replace a blown flouro globe than install an LED that uses half the power and should last a lot longer.
"I'm for sustainability. "
I'm for motherhood too …
Just what we need - yet another godam tax!
Sure. Just reduce the existing excise/tax as well.
Let's see, what sort of logic do we have here?
Most people can't afford an ev at the moment, so we should tax them more, so they have less money, so they can struggle even more with everyday living expenses, so they are even further away from being able to afford an ev.
Bravo.
Like what Stephen Colbert says, if you want a clean conscience, get an EV.
Simples š
But does your clear conscience extend to how the cobalt is mined for the lithium batteries using minors for labour, bolstered by corrupt African governments turning a blind eye and being lined with filthy equally corrupt Chinese luca.
The same African leaders who pocket the money for their own families but not share it back to their people. Sad really.Mining cobalt compred to drilling for oil? Both are equally bad. Corporations raping the landscape for profit.
Then consider cobalt in lithium batteries is recyclable but oil is burnt to co2 and other pollutants that you canāt get back.
oil is burnt to co2 and other pollutants that you canāt get back.
My plants have never looked better. They ā¤ļø CO2.
@rektrading: "My plants have never looked better. They ā¤ļø CO2."
RIGHT ON!
Colourless, odourless trace gas (0.04%), plant food CO2 is not a pollutant.
Then consider cobalt in lithium batteries is recyclable
Being recyclable ā getting recycled.
@Euphemistic: "oil is burnt to co2 and other pollutants that you canāt get back."
No need to "get it back"
Plants thrive on colourless, odourless trace gas (0.04%), plant food CO2.CSIRO: Deserts āgreeningā from rising CO2
https://csiropedia.csiro.au/deserts-greening-from-rising-co2ā¦Why Are Trees Growing Much Faster Now? Likely Due To Rising Atmospheric CO2 http://climaterealists.com/index.php/index.php?id=5516
Donāt Ask Alarmist āScientistsā Why Trees Are Growing Much Faster
ALTERNATIVE LINK: http://tinyurl.com/bhjkh7w
CO2 is causing a fundamental change in forest productivity. Trees are growing faster and require less water to growAnother benefit of more CO2 āpollutionā: Trees Using Water More Efficiently as Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Rises http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/news/release/trees-water-atmospheriā¦
40yrs after 1st Earth Day: Air Quality Has Never Been Better
http://mjperry.blogspot.com.au/2010/03/40-years-later-air-quā¦Longer, Healthier, More Comfortable Lives On A Cleaner Planet
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/04/us-life-expectancy-in-ā¦Prominent Scientist Freeman Dyson: āAtmospheric CO2 may actually be improving the environmentā http://tinyurl.com/d6wlgfg
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/05/freeman-dyson-speaks-ā¦@Gekov: More co2 is not a good thing, they been telling us that for decades despite what youāve linked above.
Besides, the noxious pollutants that are emitted along wit the co2 arenāt good either.
@Euphemistic: "More co2 is not a good thing"
How so?
Have you noticed any bad effects yourself or are you just swallowing the endless propaganda?
I'm still waiting to see ANY effects.@Gekov: Iām going with the majority of the worlds scientists. Seems you might be the one going with propaganda.
You arenāt aware of the major floods, droughts and fires weāve had in the last few years?
@Euphemistic: "You arenāt aware of the major floods, droughts and fires weāve had in the last few years?"
You were obviously born yesterday …
FYI we've ALWAYS had "major floods, droughts and fires" … and much worse in the past.
For example …
The truth about Californiaās [AND AUSTRALIAāS] So-Called āclimate apocalypseā
SUMMARY: FIRE SUPPRESSION POLICY WAS A HUGE MISTAKE!
The era of fire suppression dates back to Teddy Rooseveltās days in the White House at the beginning of the 20th century. Several massive blazes, such as the 1889 Santiago Canyon Fire, persuaded him to expand federal control over forests in order to suppress fires.
The turning point was probably the BIG BURN in 1910, just after Rooseveltās departure. Over just two days in August, it burned 3million acres in Idaho, Montana, Washington and British Columbia.
The BIG BURN in 1910 made Congress take fire suppression seriously, and a policy of immediate action was instituted, with the use of water and firebreaks. Over the years, this policy was stepped up as more people moved into fire-prone areas. The introduction of mechanisation and aircraft allowed for much more effective suppression after the Second World War.
By the 1960s, however, scientists began to realise that attempting fire suppression was a HUGE MISTAKE, as it allowed the build-up of undergrowth and deadwood, the ideal fuel for spreading intense fires.
Jon Keeley of the US Geological Survey comments: āBy the 1960s when we realised it was a problem, vast amounts of fuels had accumulated for 50 or more years. The fires became far bigger than could easily be handled.ā
It is estimated that there is now five times more wood fuel debris in Californiaās forests than existed before Europeans arrived.@Gekov: The propaganda I see is mostly from oil companies or politicians trying to discredit scientists. It comes from vested interests in maintaining profits from fossil fuels.
@Euphemistic: Are these the same scientists that told us we should stay home for 2 weeks to flatten the curve, or that the vaccine will stop us from getting covid and eliminate the virus, or that Thalidomide was perfectly safe, or that have been predicting a cysmic doomsday since the 1960s?
Yeah, I think anything left of "The Scientists" credibility was well and truly shattered a long time ago. These people force unprecedented interruptions on everyone's life and then simply cower out and say "oh but the science changed" when they turn out to be wrong. If you did that at any other job you'd be walked out the door very quickly.
Science can be an amazing tool for human progress, but not when it's hijacked by left-wing ideologues to push a phony agenda.
Mining cobalt compred to drilling for oil? Both are equally bad.
Also, petrol cars use both, some EVs (Tesla Model 3 RWD) use neither.
Buy an EV with an LFP battery that contains no cobalt or nickel like the base Tesla Model 3.
same idiots voting yes for this are the same idiots that supported dans property tax levy which 8 days later even dan realized it was a bad policy.
almost all taxes are useless and not necessary - around 50 percent of taxes go to education, infrastructure, health care and defense the rest of the other 50 percent is wasting on other crap that mostly welfare and useless social services like the idiots getting paid 200k a year to ensure we 'use pronouns' to not offend anyone.
im all for a greener Australia but we need less taxes not more and a hell of a lot less red tape
Less red tape will also allow businesses to innovate their way out of any problem we may face in the future. This is what socialist types don't understand. They think the government will fix all their problems yet for most of human history the greatest solutions have come from the private sector.
Less red tape also allows corporations to pillage all and sundry in pursuit of higher returns for shareholders. There has to be a balance between having red tape and ending up with a health industry in the USA that makes sick people gonbroke because heir health expenses are vastly more than anywhere else in the world
The "problem" with these kinds of punative taxes designed to discentivise 'bad' behaviour and encourage 'good' behaviour is that the alternatives are not available to many of the poorest of our society and further, state governments are striving to put taxes on supposed "good" behaviour.
People may say this is an LNP Problem and I guess that's true but I dont think any kind of help even from a Labor government will be sufficient with the way things are right now.
It's more of an Australia problem. Our political response to the pandemic showed that our culture of government is just regressive, exploitative, and reckless. We've still got leaders throwing restrictions at us like it's 2019 even though the rest of the world has moved on forgotten about the virus.
Canberra is just infected with the most vile type of human life God hath created, led even more astray by corporate greed and wealth.
I'm not saying I agree or disagree with you but to turn this into a covid slash vaxx argument wouldnt be a thing I would do.
- 1
- 2
No and no.