I am concerned about the government's proposed Carbon Tax and I don't believe that compensatory payments to those on a low income will cover the increases in food, clothing, utilities, transport and rental that will ensue. Much has been said over the past twenty four hours about how $10 per week compensation to those on low incomes will cover the inevitable increases, but no-one has mentioned the fact that costs incurred in the building industry will trickle down and those least able to afford rental properties will be hit yet again by owners who will wish to recoup associated costs. And I haven't even said anything yet about how this will raise the price of new houses, inhibiting the ability of many to be able to become property/house owners. No matter how much the government gives those on low incomes it will not cover the existing high prices of food, utilities and rentals; no matter how much the government compensates individuals and families, six months after the fixed rate of compensation, prices will increase again. Already we have seen a massive hike in the price of cigarettes this year and we are forced to pay high prices for fruit and vegetables or go without because of the floods in New South Wales and Queensland. I understand that we are all responsible for carbon pollution, but I am not in favor of a Carbon Tax. It's absolutely pointless informing the general public that each supermarket item is only going to increase by 2 or 3 cents, when the Carbon Tax is introduced. Sure, that's not a lot if you have a full time job, but for those trying to survive on pensions or those struggling with part time or low paid work the increase will only add to their existing financial burden. It won't stop there, many commodities will be increased and the excuse will always be that it is because of the carbon tax! In lieu of a sensible, sustained, informative, understandable community discussion about what we as a nation can do to address our fears about climate change and the possibility for sustainable options for a cleaner world for our children and grandchildren, I believe we should be able to demand a plebiscite and with it an commitment from those in power to listen to the people, not just those who voted the Greens into power at the last election.
© Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to [Julie Joy Clarke] and [Anything But Human] with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. Unless otherwise stated all images are Copyright to Julie Clarke (c)
You mean a plebiscite perhaps, unless you want Australia's constitution changed to limit the Commonwealth's powers on taxation. A plebiscite will need votes in the Federal lower house that aren't there in this parliament.
ReplyDeleteAn election won't change much, either way a cartload of tax money is going to be spent. The lib-nat coalition policy is here if you want to check it out Must say the whole accursed climate change dispute is turning me off politics again. I was going to review the getup website like I reviewed The Bolt Report but I see there is a hate Rupert Murdoch/News Limited journalists campaign giving birth there and I can't deal rationally with stuff like that :)
Yes, I meant a plebiscite, and really, it was just a plea for something, anything to make sense in the whole debate, which hasn't really been a debate at all. It's all piece-meal, fragmented and hardly understandable. And what's really pissing me off at the moment is Abbott saying that it is 'socialism through the back door' as though low income earners and pensioner's are suddenly going to be reaping some kind of reward if the carbon tax is accepted!
ReplyDeleteGreg Combet's contact page We have shares in steel companies. Pity us :)
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteErin emailed me with the following comment:
ReplyDelete"Harnessing the power of fire, was the major turning point in human evolution,distinctly separating human from animal, humans were no longer at the mercy of the elements. Fire to cook and to keep warm in the winter.
Later fire is used to create objects from metal, build pottery, bricks and tiles.
Later still, fire is used to power steam engines, to travel further and faster than had ever been done before, and used in factories to make clothes and bottles etc. Later still the internal combustion engine is created, humans can now travel further and faster, when they want, again, no longer at the mercy of the elements.
Today, being human is to use fire, just as our ancestors did thousands of years ago.
A tax on carbon emissions is a tax on humanity itself. It attempts to deny people
their self, and their birthright to be human and to do as humans do.
Worldwide, for the past 20 years there has been a campaign to make people feel guilty about using electricity and petrol. This same campaign has provided pseudo scientific misinformation with a message of "impending doom" fully knowing that the only way to get any attention is through scare mongering.
I've done my research, I am proud to say I don't believe in global warming. I am
proud to say that I don't feel guilty for driving my car to work. I'm proud to use
electricity generated at Hazelwood. I'm proud of our great country, and our state of
Victoria.
I won't accept having my rights and humanity taken away from me. As humans, fire is
ours to use".
Your argument that our culture - manufacture, production, cooking and keeping ourselves cool and warm is a fact, but there has been over-use of these energy systems in the past, generated by a human need and greed for more, particularly in wealthy western countries. The resulting pollution has encouraged many to understand that if we want a 'better, cleaner' future then we are going to have to use less or develop more sustainable ways of providing the things that we want without adding to existing pollution. Although it IS human to exploit and develop resources, it is equally human to understand that we make a huge impact of the environment and air and sea quality has diminished to a point in which non-human inhabitants of the world are suffering because of our neglect. Yes, there has been a lot of scare mongering, but this is often used to push people into action.
ReplyDeleteI think that there are many issues that are being drawn together in this confusing debate, but they all ultimately depend upon whether or not one believes in climate change and how that change will impact of world societies. I believe that humans contribute to carbon emissions, but I'm not convinced that this has much to do with climate change - I still think it's all speculative.
ReplyDeleteErin's reply (emailed to me)
ReplyDelete"I have no objection, rather fully support and encourage, recycling and re-using. I also fully support energy efficient products and efficient power generation.
I believe there are many ways to achieve efficient use of our finite resources. A
carbon dioxide tax is not best way to achieve it.
I am very worried that this "policy" is leading Australia down the road to nuclear power for base load power generation. Nuclear is not "clean". Radiation is a real and genuine threat to life and the environment. All is fine until there is an accident, nuclear power is a game of
Russian roulette. I can understand why countries that don’t have large coal resources use nuclear power. It's a risk worth taking for them. For Australia with abundant coal resources, there is no need to take such a deadly environmental risk".
Erin's comment in regard to my statement about the affect on non-human inhabitants:
ReplyDelete""air and water quality" affecting our non-human friends is an issue of chemical pollutants, that is, REAL toxic pollutants, such as benzene and heavy metals etc. This a separate issue to non-pollutants such as CO2".
Coal mining has been controversial since before the time of Emile Zola and Germinal
ReplyDeleteAt 12.46 Erin emailed this message to me:
ReplyDelete"Another issue which people seem to have overlooked about how this will affect our
economy is that if the cost of power and fuel goes up therefore the cost of manufacturing goes up, therefore the cost of products goes up, then ordinary working people demand pay rises to compensate for the cost of living increase, this
cycle results in inflation.
Wage increases lead to increased cost of products. This makes ALL Australian
exported products cost more. This causes a lack of international demand for Australian products. Australian manufacturing is reduced - jobs are lost".
Later, Erin wrote:
ReplyDelete"By big polluters you are talking about every person in our country. Everyone who
uses electricity or uses public transport or cars or buys food from the shops.
This tax is an attack on the population of Australia. An attack on business and an
attack on jobs.
You realize that this tax will equally affect public transport? There is no subsidy
for public transport operators. The fuel tax on commercial diesel applies to freight
trains, country passenger diesel services. Electric trains, trams and buses. WTF?
How does this encourage public transport use??
This policy is total madness.
OK, I think, but could be wrong, the "communism through the back door" comment by
Abbott is in relation to the similarity of philosophy between the communist Marxist
philosophy of a classless society.
And the "earth love" philosophy of fanatical environmentalists. Both communism, and
extreme environmentalism may seem pure in their basic goals, but in reality fail
miserably, both destroy western industrial society and destroy the aspirations and
freedoms of the individual".
I think we've come a full circle here Erin because whilst you are arguing for capitalism, competition and the need to maintain business, jobs, freedom and personal aspirations, I was arguing that it is exactly capitalist society that encourages, competition and individualism, which engenders many to exploit the misfortunes of others in order to 'get ahead' themselves. The old saying: 'we live in a dog eat dog world' rings true.
ReplyDeleteIn affect, we are both expressing concern about prices rises under the proposed carbon tax and how this will affect different people in relation to employment, housing and financial security.
Socialism is a humanist movement. Environmentalism is more a return to mediaeval times, when living, dead, heaven and earth were theorized as a coalition. The environmental alliance is the more prosaic one of human or nonhuman life described in the ecosophy platform principles.
ReplyDeleteYes, there is more than a little medieval soothsaying in the prophesying of those who imagine they know what the future will bring in terms of climate change and how it will impact upon us. I wish they could have as much clarity about other important aspect of our society.
ReplyDeleteI'm trying to write about that, it is difficult to get a handle on but I think we are being asked to (metaphorically?) burn our vanities, or perhaps turn the burning vanities off.
ReplyDeletePredictions based on modeling is one thing, nature is another thing entirely; she has a way of flying in the face of what we think we know. Is much of this just another example of scientists/humanists desire to control?
ReplyDeleteThink it is something else entirely. You can ask another human for justice (might not get it but you can ask). Is difficult to see how you can get justice from a fish, or show mercy to a rock, in this new alliance between human and not human. So no, don't think green/ecosophy is a humanist project.
ReplyDeleteThe alliances between human and not human are generally one sided. We (humans) have formed alliances with animals (particularly in bio-medicine) because they are useful to us (porcine products etc.). We are already dependent upon non-human others (animals and machines) and it is this that is being recognized in the 'post-human' era. I think it's this recognition that has made us aware (for some painfully)that we are part of nature and culture and not separate from it (not superior, not more worthy) and it is in this way that the notion of the living and dead or the human and not human intersects with some of the ideas in the medieval period that you outline. So, what has this to do with environmentalism or the call for a cleaner future? I think that we are understanding more and more that we co-exist in a world and that each of us are, in our own way, responsible for the future. Perhaps I'm a cynic, but I really don't know how, even with the best laid plans how we can know all the variables that must come into play to determine a set future. I suppose some could say that if we do nothing about carbon pollution we know what will happen, the situation will worsen, but if we do something like have a carbon tax, some thing will immediately become worse. I suppose it all depends on whether we are concerned with the now, or with the future?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think ecosophy is a genuine rupture from humanism for a couple of reasons. Humans are contextualized as bad for non human life, original sin of a sort. The human race should shrink, not multiply, the antithesis of european humanism. The difference between big and great is profound in these contexts.
ReplyDeletedouble post before sorry
ReplyDeleteAlex Jones at www.infowars.com has said that America and the globalists (mainly oil companies and financial institutions.e.g. hudge funds)created a peak oil fraud in order to create artificial scarcity in order to charge more for thier product because it has become harder and less efficient to extract BUT this is only true for oil reserves in the zones of western nations. so climate propaganda most likely serves to offset the expense incurred when extracting natural resources which in the case of most of the oil under western control, has become difficult and can no longer subsidise itself after the economic bubble burst in 2008. search for this and related subjects at www.infowars.com p.s. great deductions Julie. the government website www.cleanenergyfuture.org maintains Australia will use all revenue from the climate tax to fund alternatives. worth a squiz also
ReplyDelete