carbon tax - unintended consequences, page-48

Yes I agree Jantimot - he shouldn't need to worry about where his electricity is coming from - that is exactly why we need a carbon tax, or better, a GHG levy. (It is not a tax and it is not just on carbon, so I think the best term to use is 'GHG levy'.)

Destroying the lifeboold of the planet? What, this guy with his foundry is the "lifeblood of the planet"? We are gradually destroying the biosphere of the planet, but that is my opinion, I don't expect the vast majority of HC posters to agree, because you all think the AGW theory is a global conspiracy. Too bad a logical evaluation of the situation will tell you that the people with the most to lose are those involved in the multi-trillion dollar industries built around fossil fuels, which basically includes everyone on the planet who has driven a car or switched on coal-fired power. Yes, that includes me.

The conspiratorial scientists getting their modest research budgets are the ones scheming to make up this global warming scam...LOL. Gimme a break, the idea is ludicrous! Anyone who believes that needs their head read, you have been taken in by the merchants of doubt. Same thing happened with tobacco. If HC was around then you would have all been arguing that the scientific evidence linking smoking with lung cancer and other diseases was uncertain, LOL. You will deny it now, but I believe current evidence suggests it would have been the case.

Anyway, for anyone still with me who actually believes human induced climate change is happening (not many here, I know), the bottom line is we need a concerted global effort. I don't think we should be restricting the use of electricty per se, although energy efficiency is a very good thing, but we should be changing how it is generated. How can clean energy compete with heavily subsidised, dirty forms of energy? We need a level playing field and a GHG levy or price on carbon is the only way to do that.

If anyone loses their job over a carbon price, as unlikely as I believe it is, well maybe they were in the wrong job? A price signal to the market will necessarily result in some restructuring of the market. That is what it is for! (Why do all you free-marketeers suddenly turn into socialists when a 'user pays' principle is introduced to counter pollution?) I don't believe anyone over-polluting the atmosphere deserves to keep their job, no matter how much money they may or may not be making for themselves. Whether they are in Australia, China, the USA or wherever. That is just my opinion, not necessarily the opinion of anyone else.

I ask again, for the third time - in the absence of a carbon price/GHG levy - what steps has this foundry owner taken to reduce the carbon/GHG intensity of his business? Possibly none? Because he has no real incentive to do so. Keeping his business going in a low carbon economy will provide an incentive I would suggest. Harsh but fair, but its a harsh old world out there and we are making it harsher every year we delay these important and inevitable structural reforms.