Comments by "Invisible huh?" (@Whoisthis1111) on "News Corp's dramatic climate change backflip | Media Watch" video.

Carbon tax was never good. Subsidies on renewables and renewable uptake is a far better solution. The carbon tax would only force more offshoring of emissions. If not, then it will instead come down to the consumer .
2
@danstoj5485 a start to increased prices for all Australians, businesses would’ve dumped the prices on Australians and still emitted in other nations that don’t have such carbon tax. look at the EU, they are reducing emissions but they are also losing manufacturing to places like China where they emit 30% of the world’s emissions. We would’ve needed actual reforms to fix the issue, not a tax which could be managed by offsetting costs or moving the business overseas to avoid the tax, meaning the economy could be stifled and the government could have lower budgets due to the movement of taxes altogether as the business relocates. the carbon tax had far reaching issues, which is why I never supported it. We need to subsidise instead of tax. We need technology to help us transition as well. Things like nuclear and hydrogen. They are the future.
2
@3rdrock you want net-zero right? Putting a carbon tax can result in increased prices anyways, especially areas that are carbon intensive like mining businesses and electricity providers. That would result in a higher price for all Australians instead of taxes being used to help develop technologies that can result in benefits for their society and other nations which australia can help reach net-zero. Remember that Asia represent more than half of the world’s emissions. It’s not easy to transition a developing economy and can result in famines and other internal issues.
1
@danstoj5485 I agree with what you are saying, but as you said, it would’ve reduced emissions, not neutralised them. What I’m talking about is the subsidisation of emissions reduction and neutralisation technology across the board. This is down to the industrial process and to the electricity that is used. Companies I agree would’ve brought some plan during the carbon tax era but this would’ve still amounted to companies leaving or passing extra expense onto the customer as emissions were not going to be reduced in areas such as the energy sector.
1
@3rdrock government, aka us tax payers. I thought you could easily infer that from “that would result in a higher price for all Australians instead of taxes being used to help develop technologies…”
1
Transitioning to net-zero will cost $1,000,000,000,000. That is 1 trillion. That is straight from the CSIRO. Nuclear for base load power. Labor is wrong on it not having any way into the future. Charging electric cars at night is a common practice and battery technology for renewables may never get there in the next 30 years. Using nuclear (which is zero emissions in energy production like solar and wind but it remains around the clock unlike solar and wind) is the best option to get over this and transition to a netzero future.
1