Carbon tax - makes some people angry

[TRB]

Anyone who cares enough about an issue already has an informed opinion

wanna bet?
most people are too stupid to have an "informed" opinion.
this is why 'boat people' is such a huge issue.
in reality boat people don't even matter compared to the illegals who come by "legit" transportation and just never leave.

Its the same reason why people buy the 'trickle down' economics theory.
its never worked anywhere in the world as an economic strategy yet heaps of people still think its great.

[skitzor]

Anyone who cares enough about an issue already has an informed opinion

and people don't care because they don't understand the issue. can't get people to care about something they have no idea about.

Every party wastes millions on advertising that's no more legit than those two little old witness ladies who keep knocking on my door with their "signs of the coming apocalypse" pamphlets.

I have absolutely no issue with saying they are completely different and that was a bad comparison.

people need to understand that globally our way of life is unsustainable. they need to know that there needs to be some fundamental changes. they need to know that they need to **** deal with the short term pain to benefit the future (or to have a future). majority of people don't know the long term implications of doing nothing, so they take the side of short term gain.

majority of people's opinion is perfectly understandable if you take into account their knowledge of the issue, but completely **** batshit insane if you take into account what their knowledge could be with a little education.

[André Axe'm]

A lot of people likely don't care as well.

[Wyld]

A lot of people likely don't care as well.

I find that just as much of a problem, if not worse.

[Ap0ca1yps3]

Quite simply, the NBN has cost the taxpayer a bundle to ensure that we as consumers continue to pay exorbitant prices comparatively for our broadband connection, whereby this should have been left to the private sector to provide us a competitive broadband solution at no cost to the taxpayer...

This argument has never made sense to me, it's pure blind ideology that, like trickle-down economics, has little basis in logic or fact. NBNCo is building the network with a target ROI of 8%. Enough to make a profit over the build, but not enough to make commercial investors sit up and take notice, and go through all the work of building a nation-wide fibre network. If Telstra built the network (the most likely candidate if not the government) they would target a ROI of at least 25%, would restore their infrastructure monopoly, and guess where that extra return on investment comes from?

If you can explain how access will cost less while the principal investor is making more return without vague assumptions that the private sector is magically more "efficient" then I will be VERY impressed.

Firstly....

"The National Broadband Network (NBN) is the subject of promises from the government that consumers will pay comparable prices to current day ADSL2+ and phone service bundles in order to access entry level NBN based services, and that NBN based retail pricing will be nationally uniform," said Hackett.

"Unfortunately, a number of pressure points in the wholesale pricing model exist which will make these promises (from the government) untenable in practice, unless serious issues with the underlying pricing model are addressed by NBNCo and the ACCC."

And this...

http://www.zdnet.com.au/do-the-oecd-stats-support-the-nbn-339313236.htm

This is how Australia performed:

For connections slower than 2.5Mbps, Australia ranked 3rd most expensive behind Mexico and Chile;
For connections between 2.5Mbps and 15Mbps, Australia ranked 3rd least expensive, just behind Greece and Austria;
For connections between 15Mbps and 30Mbps, Australia ranked 14th most expensive of 33;
For connections over 45Mbps, Australia ranked 12th most expensive out of 33; and
For connections between 30Mbps and 45Mbps, Australia was not included in the statistics.

Personally, I think Simon hit the nail on the head...

[Ap0ca1yps3]

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/abbott-plan-would-double-carbon-cost-20110914-1k9s6.html

As I said....

In short, 'Carbon Tax' - Right idea - Wrong time, and wrong implementation. Economy too volatile, and even if successful achievement of targets will have negligible effect on global carbon emissions, yet will have significant effect on our national economy and the welfare of a great number of Australians. Successful implementation of such a scheme should be negotiated amongst the G20 in order to have a notable effect as well as nuetralising the impact unilaterally so as not to impact unfairly on our domestic economy.

I never in any way expressed support for Abbot's plan to which you refer. I merely suggested that the proposed carbon tax bill for the Gillard government is both ill timed, and ill conceived, given the state of the global economy, and the fact that it effectively sticks our neck out as a nation, where other nations are not yet willing to commit. I am all for a policy change on emissions, but to be effective it must be done unilaterally with a large number of global powerhouses. To bring in the carbon tax as it has been proposed, will not only increase emissions in the short to mid term, it will have a detrimental effect on manufacturing jobs, and also further tighten the purse-strings of everyday Australians. Why should our government feel the need to need to further inhibit our export competitiveness as well as the welfare of a vast number of Australians, all of which has been proposed on the back of a pre-election lie.... Two words...Bob Brown.

[skitzor]

"The National Broadband Network (NBN) is the subject of promises from the government that consumers will pay comparable prices to current day ADSL2+ and phone service bundles in order to access entry level NBN based services, and that NBN based retail pricing will be nationally uniform," said Hackett.

"Unfortunately, a number of pressure points in the wholesale pricing model exist which will make these promises (from the government) untenable in practice, unless serious issues with the underlying pricing model are addressed by NBNCo and the ACCC."

And this...

http://www.zdnet.com.au/do-the-oecd-stats-support-the-nbn-339313236.htm

Personally, I think Simon hit the nail on the head...

personally, I think that you totally missed the point of what Simon was saying.

Simon Hackett was the first influential person (that I know of) to suggest FTTH. years and years ago there was talk of building a FTTN network, and he came out strong saying that simply won't do. it would be a waste of money, and the government needed to do it once and do it right. he wanted FTTH. years later, he got his wish. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they based part of their choice on his recommendations and speeches on the topic.

in that statement it seems Hackett was talking about the current bureaucracy behind the NBN. it doesn't seem like he was trashing the whole plan/idea. I'm not 100% sure of the details (but don't kid yourself, neither are you), but his recommendations seem to be more accounting and paperwork than actual engineering.

and from that zdnet article.

However, in a blog post this afternoon, Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull pointed to Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) data that said that most Australian customers do not use high speed broadband, instead opting for speeds between 1.5 and 24Mbps

what a **** stupid statement. they opt for speeds up to 24mbps because that is the highest you can go in a reasonable price range. also, the network is supposed to be for the future. sure, we could go for another few (maybe several) years on our current network, but beyond that it starts to fall apart, speed wise and physically.

this project is pumping billions of dollars back into the economy. JOBS. the catchphrase of our time. jobs are being created, infrastructure is being created.

both ill timed, and ill conceived, given the state of the global economy

America is going down/not going down regardless of our carbon tax.

what period of time in the last 100 years do you think we could have done something like this?

also. could you clear some things up for me?

how much more expensive is this carbon tax going to make raw materials we export? how much %? let's say it's 10%. are the companies going to pass on the cost to buyers, or are they going absorb it all? is it something in between?

if they absorb the cost, doesn't that (in this example) mean that instead of making a profit of $1000mn, they only make a profit of a measly $900mn? if those companies are cutting jobs because they only make $900mn a year instead of $1000mn, is the carbon tax really the thing to blame?

[Giblet1]

Interesting watch...

[Nekosan]

Best not post anything anti-alarmism here Gib, they'll burn you at the stake.

[TRB]

Its about as factual as "an inconvenient truth".

[Bato]

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
― Isaac Asimov

I'll just leave that in that thread.

Although the documentary was welcomed by global warming sceptics, it was criticised by scientific organisations and individual scientists (including one of the scientists interviewed in the film and one whose research was used to support the film's claims). The film's critics argued that it had misused and fabricated data, relied on out-of-date research, employed misleading arguments, and misrepresented the position of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Later broadcasts corrected three errors which had been found in the original film. The film's producer, Martin Durkin, has asserted that the errors were minor and did not affect the film's conclusions.

If 1% of the scientists started claiming the earth is flat, I wonder if people would start making such movies too.

[Sathias]

Firstly....

"The National Broadband Network (NBN) is the subject of promises from the government that consumers will pay comparable prices to current day ADSL2+ and phone service bundles in order to access entry level NBN based services, and that NBN based retail pricing will be nationally uniform," said Hackett.

"Unfortunately, a number of pressure points in the wholesale pricing model exist which will make these promises (from the government) untenable in practice, unless serious issues with the underlying pricing model are addressed by NBNCo and the ACCC."

That was before NBNCo changed their pricing model to implement some of the changes Simon was suggesting, changes he publically supported.

http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/396560 ... s_rebates/

In any case, you are only talking about the pricing model here, not the network itself. There is no indication that the network would be any cheaper to build if done solely by a third party. As far as I am concerned, if the government builds it, its with taxes I've already paid, and they are trying to recoup their money over a lot longer time. If industry builds it (with a big emphasis on "if") that money will come out of the pocket of end-users, much quicker.

[TRB]

and commercial industry will never build it here.
telstra was already working towards phasing out land lines completely.

just ask people who try to game over telstras mobile network now and 9 out of 10 will tell you its nearly impossible.
remembering that most people using wireless are doing so because a fixed line BB solution isn't available to them.
so if something as unimportant as gaming is next to impossible to do properly, then I can't see how anything that is actually important could be done reliably either.

[Kremmen]

just on a side note and to get away from the National broadband rollout in the carbon tax thread.

I was surfing the channels when I stumbled upon Bob Brown being interviewed on meet the press.
The question posed to him was why didnt he support Abbots carbon plan which didnt allow companies to by credits from over seas and would actually reduce carbon output opposed to the Gillard plan of allowing credits to be purchased and would not reduce our carbon footprint.

His responce supprised me to say the least when he didnt disagree that the Abbot plan about reducing carbon, but said that it would cost more money.

Are the greens still about saving the planet? or are they now about trying to stay in power?

[skitzor]

Are the greens still about saving the planet? or are they now about trying to stay in power?

can't save the planet if you're out of power. there's no point risking all your power for a minor win in one particular policy when you can stay in power and have major wins in other policies.

His responce supprised me to say the least when he didnt disagree that the Abbot plan about reducing carbon, but said that it would cost more money.

his response surprised you because it didn't fit your pre-conceived perceptions of his craziness? dayum. the political leader of one of the largest parties in Australia has political sense, who would have thought?