Strictly speaking thats no good - solar energy isnt infinite - we all know that in a few years time the sun is going to burn out. When it does - all you fools with solar panels are going to look pretty silly...

A good coal powerplant can carry on running long after the sun has finished its hydrogen fusion

As the GST is mostly directed towards the states. I don't think there's much incentive for the Fed to raise it.

I believe the Fed govt has to get the agreements of all the state govts before GST can be raised. Not worth the effort.

im sure that is the case. i was just being facetious.
Its friday and I'm at work

I think I might have convinced myself that there is potential in this carbon tax thing. It may still be a scheme to transfer money from rich to poor but there is a possibility that it might work.

The problem with the scheme I proposed earlier (take 5% off tax and put 5%) on GST still has the problem that it requires individuals to invest in systems to reduce their bills and hence carbon usage . This has obviously been tried and it's not producing results. However in the past there has never been a strong incentive for a business to invest in systems that reduce carbon usage. For example you don't see many factory sheds laden with solar panels.

So, accepting that the law of unintended consequences could send this anywhere, there is potential that companies may invest more into reducing their carbon usage and making their products more competitive than their peers who haven't made the investment. And companies are in a better position to invest in these systems more efficiently than individuals.

I think it might be time to suck it and see.

All good

It's probably a popular opinion.

Can't say I agree there. The government recently scaled back the rebates on solar because it had been a lot more successful than they had planned. In terms of installations, it has already achieved the target set for the end of 2013!

The tax's detail shows that there is $10b being put aside for renewable energy investment. This is aimed at business therefore helping them transition to a less carbon reliant power source.

Maybe to a degree. More successful than expected does not necessarily mean successful. I think you might get bigger wins both in capacity and cost effectiveness by getting more companies to invest in it.

I'd spotted that.

Dunno about that. If you think about it, if we could get every home with solar on the roof then the majority of this generation would be feeding back into the grid to supply business. Whatever you don't use gets fed back into the grid and given that most people wouldn't be at home during business hours you are transferring that energy to where it is needed (ie: businesses).

However, if we also invest in making businesses grid-independent through energy usage then that is also good

Carbon tax is aimed at reducing carbon emissions. The rest is the typical mangle of middle class welfare payouts used by both sides when putting through difficult to sell legislation.

Abbott says that climate change is real but has little policy other than a "no". Everything else has been slammed by economists as a waste. Abbott used to propose a carbon tax so who knows what multitude of schemes he will come up with.

At least Julia has grown bollocks even though she could not sell sweets to a child if she tried.

are you suggesting she is a failed paedophile?

But who can take any notice of economists and fanciers?

Is it not those people who inadvertently brought the GFC to bear?

If economists don't like it then it is probably a good idea

They were the ones saying this is too good to be true. Finananciers are salesmen who take a cut of any deal and do not have to pick up the mess. Us the taxpayer did that. Too many people were making money to want to listen.