[LINK] NBNCo Report

[Craig Sanders]

On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 11:17:21AM +1000, Noel Butler wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-04-22 at 20:19 +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > hence the relentless pushing of the line that Julia Gillard is a liar
> > - after all, she said she wouldn't introduce a carbon tax but was
> > determined to put a price on carbon....and, look!, she didn't introduce
> > a carbon tax and did indeed put a price on carbon.
> > 
> > this somehow makes her a "liar".
> 
> yep, Juliar herself calls it a tax.

yeah, well, if that's the case then i guess she's given up because no
matter what she or anyone else says, childish morons are going to call
her "Juliar"


personally, i wish she *had* put an actual tax on carbon because carbon
trading / offsetting is a stupid idea that doesn't and can't solve the
problem.

the Cheat Neutral (http://www.cheatneutral.com/) parody sums it up
perfectly:

  What is Cheat Offsetting?

  When you cheat on your partner you add to the heartbreak, pain and
  jealousy in the atmosphere.

  Cheatneutral offsets your cheating by funding someone else to be
  faithful and NOT cheat. This neutralises the pain and unhappy emotion
  and leaves you with a clear conscience.  
  
  Can I offset all my cheating?

  First you should look at ways of reducing your cheating. Once
  you've done this you can use Cheatneutral to offset the remaining,
  unavoidable cheating.



> Try call it what you will, but any govt that forces
> businesses/individuals to pay them for anything, is taxing them,

so what do you call it when a business or individual forces everyone
else to pay for their pollution - dumping? externalising expenses?
corporate welfare? somebody else's problem?

in the not-too-distant past, you could dump whatever you wanted into the
sewers or directly into the creek/river/waterway behind your factory
- all kinds of industrial waste including heavy metals, poison, toxic
sludge, biological waste like blood and guts from abbotoirs, whatever
you wanted.

eventually people realised that there were significant costs associated
with letting people/businesses do that, and that those costs were
borne by the entire community (and, in particular, by people who did
not benefit in the slightest from the activities that generated the
pollution) and lobbied for legislation to prohibit such dumping and require
those who created the pollution to pay for disposal.

(illegal dumping still occurs, of course, but the important point is
that it's illegal and people/companies can get fined or imprisoned for
the crime)


CO2 is also pollution that ought to be paid for by those who
produce and/or benefit from it (and that includes producers and
consumers)...because making people pay for it is the only disincentive
to pollute that actually works.


> no amount of spin doctoring can change that fact.

the point being discussed here is that spin doctoring does indeed
override facts.

craig

-- 
craig sanders <cas at taz.net.au>