The Carbon Tax and what it means for you

(http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/gillard-never-met-a-tax-she-didnt-like-and-hike/ )

As some of you will be witnessing today that Prime Minister- Julia Gillard is 'reneging' on an Election Promise to implement a Carbon Tax from July 1st. There of course will be allot of information in regards to this, and we will have differing points of view, this article will try to analyse these.

It has perhaps come at a bad time for Prime Minister Julia Gillard, with all the recent debate in regards to the Flood Tax Levey, and the need to reduce or close certain Government Subsidies to try to make the cost for people cheaper.

It is obvious for all those with bills that the cost of living is increasing, and taxes- just make it harder, but then taxes also pay for the maintenance of the road that we drive on, the parks we sleep in, and implement other strategies to aide Australians both domestic and abroad.

What is Carbon Tax?
This information was provided by http://climatelab.org/Carbon_tax

Carbon Tax is a tax that is placed on CO2 emissions, and is mostly focused on the CO2 emissions related to the burning of fossil fuels- the same burning that creates the majority of electricity in Australia, and currently China- thanks again for buying our minerals :)
(Australia Post-http://www.theaustralianpost.com/2010/03/andrew-forrest-again-number-one/)

We are all smiling like this bloke, unless you don't live in WA

By placing this on to emissions the Government is planning for the company to start to find alternative measures for bringing us energy- mainly green energy. There is at first a fundamental flaw to this at the moment;
A company wishes to make money and at the moment they have not been given an incentive- or better yet legislation to absorb the increased cost that this tax will bring, hence they will more than likely 'pass' the cost onto the consumer, ie you. So the cost of electricity and gas will go up as it has for the past few years, but then you just add some more.

The plan of the Government is also to increase the cost of this tax over the years, thus ensuring greater incentive for the company to change to green or sustainable energy production- but there is likely to be a barrier for a while, because the company can pass a fair portion of the tax onto the consumer.

Here is a diagram

OK lets assume that at the beginning we were in a situation at PE, QE, where the demand for the company's energy is in an equilibrium to the supply given by the company (this is of course simplified and ignoring those with solar energy buybacks, and the lost kilowatts), this means that the cost that we the consumer is willing to pay is being equaled out by the quantity of energy that the company gives us.

Now the Government implements the Carbon Tax, this thus increases the cost of production to the company, and they want to make back this money, moving the price to the consumer to Pc, while the price for the producer falls to PP, hence the consumer will pay the cost of production which is PP, and the added tax, thus Pc. At this point in time a consumer is likely to use less when cost is high, but a producer is likely to produce less when the consumer is paying a low price, hence the quantity will shift from Qe to Qt.

Because of the necessary use of energy in today's society this situation will need to create a new equilibrium, because at the moment at Pc, Qt, there will be a surplus, and that means wasted energy.

Expressed another way;
Shown by an increase in the price that consumers will pay. If we follow this on the y axis (the vertical axis) to Pc, then draw a line horizontally so it crosses both the dotted Demand line and the solid Supply line, we can easily observe that both demand and supply do not overlap here. Hence at the point in time the market will either have a decrease in quantity to Qt on the x axis (horizontal axis). Demand is still high, but if the company wishes to make the money back they might be enticed to reduce the supply, thus bringing a shortage to the market and hence people will pay more for the privilege to use it. This would then eventually create a different equilibrium

- Increase the cost to the company, and they will be likely to decrease supply so that they can then charge a higher price to the consumer- because there is now a higher demand for the product. We will now look at this situation with the following diagram;

At the beginning we are at the Equilibrium of PO, QO. Then the Company is now under the influence of the carbon tax, so they will have an increase in their costs, and the easiest way for the company to deal with this increase in cost is to pass it on to the consumer. Hence the new cost of P1 is formed,

1. The increase in cost is likely to turn people off from using the product and this will hence create a decrease in demand for the product, shown by moving left on the demand scale to its new position on P1, and the company will in turn create less of it, hence shifting the supply scale to the new scale of S1, which then creates a new market equilibrium of P1, Q1.

2. Then as the population grows and the lack of fossil fuels starts to occur there will be an increase in demand which will then increase the price to consumers again, and increase the quantity. Shown in the movement from the equilibrium of P1, Q1 to P2, Q2, which requires the shift in the demand curve to the right.

3. Perhaps the Government will show leniency and give low income earners a subsidy to aid with the supply of power, here is a graph showing the effect of a subsidy using the example or meals.

At the original equilibrium of P1, Q1 we realise that there are still a large range of people who could be getting energy (food) and but cannot afford it (those on the demand scale below the equilibrium point), hence with the introduction of a subsidy, the company will be forced to decrease the cost of their product by increasing supply- shown in the shift in supply to the right, and the new equilibrium of P2, Q2. The downside with this situation is that there is still the variance between P1 and P2, and this loss in income might eventually cause financial trouble for our power companies, even though the new equilibrium of P2, Q2 should now be economical for both producer and consumer.

Conclusion;

Overall there will be an increase in the cost to the consumer, and the Government is unlikely to give everyone a subsidy for power. Hence will mean higher costs, and because the fossil fuels, and electricity are now such fundamentals of our civilisation, there will be run off costs from other businesses and industries thus increasing the cost in nearly everything- like the GST, another controversial tax.

Questions- Would it then be us or the companies that are really taxed?

The tax is meant to be a burden upon companies, so as to encourage them to improve environmentally, but there will be run off.

* Will all forms of carbon emission be taxed?

The focus will be upon business and industry that are involved with the burning or fossil fuels, though there is a possibility that in the future the plastics and other petroleum products could have a similar fate- though probably at a smaller rate.

This is also possibly true for the agriculture industry. There might also be a related push for cleaner motor vehicles or face the possibility of tax.

Taken to its logical extreme, all people breath out carbon dioxide which in some way would add to the global warming issue (If you believe that; that debate is not the purpose of this article), but it is highly unlikely, and would cause a large outcry from civilians.

* Will the carbon tax create jobs?

This is debatable, Julia Gillard states that it will, these will most likely be in the following areas;

- Those who are called in to license new businesses with carbon tax policies, and the policy makers, and legislation. This in turn will call for an increase in lobbyists from various groups.

- Those who are encountered with the administration and enforcing of the carbon tax. Perhaps a new office or department in public service, and the conflictory business associations.

- Those who will be tasked with counting and then taxing businesses, and industry.

So there is the possibility of creating jobs yes, but it should be noted that any loss in profit for a business (as seen in the GFC) that it would also create the possibility of loss of jobs- this is also a point that the opposition to the tax are pushing.

* This all sounds rather negative why would Gillard risk her governance over this?

The timing of the announcement is unfortunate, with Australia, New Zealand and its allies recently undergoing many natural disasters and thus the need to act and place money into situations that will aid these people have taken the forefront, and have lead to debate on the flood levy tax for example. Australians and all nationalities do not like tax, it is a cost, and items are getting more expensive, however without an efficient tax system a lot of the items mentioned previously, among others would not be available. Sometimes there is waste, and some projects do not work, however the idea that everybody is charged some money to aid in the assistance of all Australians is a noble one.

The Government is trying to implement a strategy which they believe will be a future benefit, probably generations from now- when companies are using energy production that is not based on fossil fuels, and thus the aiding in the environmental problems. The concept of the carbon tax or emission trading schemes is has been around for a while and is in debate around the world.

They are working for a future benefit, similar to the experiment that was conduct where children where given the option of having on piece of candy now, or getting 10 pieces if they were to wait 10 minutes. Unfortunately a majority take short term pleasure over the possibility of greater rewards- hence there will always be more people who would prefer to keep the system as it is or with a slight better off for them- increase the economy, then bargain it on the long term possibility of environmental success. Yes, you read that right- a bargain.

There is concern that if we pass this law the following will happen;

- Loss in jobs and a decrease in the economic ability of Australia- yes we survived the GFC relatively well, but this would be self imposed.

- The possible environmental benefits would not really make a dent globally- unless we were able to protect Australia's air from all the other air in the world- so why should we, 'shoot ourselves in the foot'. This could follow from the 'problem of the commons'; which can be described as follows;

The problem of the commons arises when a group of individuals each acting in an independent and logical fashion will consciously engage in actions that will act in their best interest in regards to a finite resource (our environment), even when it is clear that the the long term ramifications of such an action will be detrimental to the group, and thus each individual.

Each country/region/person wishes to benefit themselves first- and this usually means an increase in income and prosperity- hence using resources, which can then destroy the land. Thus although everyone is acting as an individual, they are in effect all working as a group to in this case endanger the environment.

There are problems when this comes about because if we wish self interest it is hard to actively do something that is not in your immediate interests- hence it usually takes a person or body in authority to take such action- hence usually the Government. But the effectiveness of the current Government and their 'authority', especially when related to the tied election is debatable- and why debate has been a rampant fixture of most decisions made by them.

So in conclusion they are trying to make a lasting impact for better or worse, and hope that other countries will follow, and hence the ideology of the commons will be changed.

* Is Australia the only country that would engage in the carbon tax?

Other countries around the world have similar programs in place such as;

- Finland were the first to adopt the concept of the carbon tax in 1990.

- Sweden followed suit in 1991, with the result of a large increase in biofuel use, and is often the country cited with for an example.

- Netherlands had a fuel tax and now have a Regulatory Energy tax in 1996.

- UK produced a 'climate change levy' in 2001 that was used to fund energy efficiency and renewable energy activities.

- New Zealand has had discussion of a carbon tax from 2005, and a more recent emission trading scheme from 2007 has been on the tables.

- A few states in America have enacted their own carbon taxes or similar programs.

So if Australia were to enact their own carbon tax, they would not be alone in the world, with various models to choose from, and use as guidance.

(All facts for this section were gained from http://climatelab.org/Carbon_tax)

* Closing

There are costs to be accounted for in our future- and this Government; timing bad as it is, perhaps are moving forward. Yes they are reneging on a promise made, but is the possibility for further benefit to Australia and the world in the long run worth it? Possibly? Maybe not?

This article is not meant to give a definitive answer- it is meant to enlighten those who happen by.

Also it helps to have the Greens around to take some of the blame.

Leave what you think about the new tax, the Government, or even the article below.


Dale Stam

Carbon Tax worries perhaps you should look at the following;
Part One;
http://dalesnewsblog.blogspot.com/2011/11/carbon-tax-hyperbolic-worries-and.html

Part Two;
http://dalesnewsblog.blogspot.com/2011/11/carbon-tax-hyperbolic-worries-and_10.html

Are you Interested in Social Issues perhaps you will be interested in some of the following articles on this blog;

http://dalesnewsblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/obesity-article-1.html

http://dalesnewsblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/sociology-and-problems-group-report.html

http://dalesnewsblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/tripping-giant.html

http://dalesnewsblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/what-about-youth.html

5 Things that I hope Scream 4 did not do

Scream was the return to form for Wes Craven, and was probably the most popular horror film of the 1990's and in itself became a sort of pop culture phenomenon- with voice changes, and a large variety of the Ghostface costume avaiable. It took the popularity of Courtney Cox from Friends, playing a slightly more annoying version of Monica, and Neve Campbell still getting roles that people saw.

It was such a popular film that spawned a lot of copy cats and spoofery- when Scream in itself was considered a minor spoof of the genre. Scary movie, Shriek, and little nodds and winks throughout other culture avenues. It captured the feeling of the generation by bringing slasher horror back from the lull of the repeated sequels of the eighties.

With Scream 4 comming out this year, I thought I would make a wish list of what I hope this new expression of this generation of horror does not stoop to;

1. Have Ghostface engage in T.P
Saw, Hostel have bled (forgive the pun) this sub genre dry, and it does not feellike a good mix for the character of Ghostface- he is more like the slashers of old, and there are definitions and standards- basically he has an M.O, and to engage in these activities will not fit, and will be seen as an obvious ploy to accommodate in the trend that is already on the down hill slide.

2. Reboot
I know that by using the title Scream 4, they have already avoided the basic quality of the reboot, however there has been a feeling of the reboot of horror films recently that they are stylised, and the film looks good, but they are unneccessarily treading over the classsic story- with little nods to some of the key scenes from those films, instead of creating something entirely new- a new version, they seem to take the story of the original, change some of the outdated technology- will use cgi more than physical sfx and might add a few scenes to make it different.

Going from the rough trailer available it seems as though this film will be the start of a whole new trilogy (alert! Most of the recent reboots have not had sequals and if they do they are trying to explain the killer as in 'Texas Chainsaw: The Beginning', or take the series out of its comfort zone 'Halloween 2'- though I kind of liked this movie, I can see how it would be problematic for fans). Sidney, Dewey and Gale are all back, but it appears that the story will move on to focus on Emma Roberts character- a cousin to Sidney.

Plus we all still remember Scream- and its knock-offs, so a reboot will not give us anything new.

3. Use social networking well
Social networking has grown rapidly since the last Scream film and it will more than likely be making an appearance. However we have also seen recent movies where technology is used incorrectly, or as a tool to establish ok this is the distracted teenager- just like the walkman, cd player and ipod have been used- so that we the audience can go- oh teenager.

It would be interesting to see how Ghostface is able to implement elements of cyber stalking to get into a circle of friends, and then expand upon that with phonecalls- possibly picked up from someone's facebook profile?

It should not replace the phone, but It could be implemented well.

4. Do not be afraid to rid us of the cast from the past 3 films.
I enjoyed Scream 1-3, but looking back at them now, the character of Gale grates on me, and the relationship with Dewey is not going anywhere. Sidney is really just a combination of at times scared victim number 3, and Ripley...they were essential, but they are not what people remember most about the films- mostly the pre-credit kills, and Ghostface- including the voice.

5. Scream 4 needs to determine whether it will be a more serious horror film, or as a more light hearted nodd to the horror trend of the time.

Scream 3, I felt was too much comedy and self reference, where it ties the story back to the first film which we had seen spoofed before, and we had actors playing the characters, and then more actors playing actors who are playing those characters- wow depth.

Scream should follow a balance between the two, and not be too tempted to go down either role, as it did with the first film, and to a lesser extend scream 2. They were more of a self parody in scream 3. Even having a contribution cameo from Jay and Silent Bob - who I love in their own films, but it just started to raise the question of whether those characters were in the same universe as scream- or whether they were not....it just lead onto possible stories where I ask myself what would happen if Ghostface came into the Askewuniverse in a much bigger way.

Will these suggestions ruin the franchise- will killing Dewey and Gale, and Sidney ruin the franchise? How many more times can I say franchise?

Keep in mind, a new decade- a new set of rules- and that includes you film makers

Can they make Scream a scary movie again?

Leave your comments below.

Dale Stam

The Punisher.... for Kids

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punisher


Arguably a popular B-List Marvel Character, the Punisher (Frank Castle) has been a reminder of the gritty and dark character creations of the 1970s.

Although he is not one of the flagship characters, like Spider-man, Wolverine, Iron Man (more recent addition because of the success of the films), Captain America, Thor, Hulk, The Punisher has obtained a very strong core of fans, leading to many comics (some even under the 'adult only' banner of MAX), and three films.

That is right- 3 Films. Now Let us compare this to some of those flagship characters;
* Spider-Man has had up until this point in time- 3 live action feature films (I don't include the upcomming Sony reboot because well it hasn't been released yet.)
- However Spider-Man is probably the most popular character Marvel has; shown by the large pop-cultural impact the character has had; TV Shows (even a slightly weird live action one), comics, merchandise, spokesperson and video game character (to varying degrees of success).
- Spider-Man has had a major part to play in just about all of the major Marvel Cross Overs.
Especially in the Recent (recent means with the last few decades- comics, right?) House of M, Civil War, Marvel Zombies and probably in the up-comming Fear Itself.
- He was the headline act for the new Ultimate Comic Line- which tried to reintroduce characters anew.
- However there is one major problem with Spider-Man at the moment...the films rights are owned by Sony- this was before Marvel Started with their own live action content. This has therefore hindered the possibility for Spidey to appear in the larger Marvel Film Universe, and even delayed his appearance in the children's show Super Hero Squad (I think he is supposed to appear in the second series- so keep an eye out for your friendly neighbourhood spidey, Kiddies).

* Wolverine has been in 4 live action films; the X-men trilogy, and the out of left field Origins.
Supposedly another Wolverine film is in the works- but will feature supposedly his studies in Japan- and the accompaning Frank Miller Story.
- Wolverine is also usually appearing in any item of Marvels, whether as an adult aimed -best at what I do- dark character, or as he appears in the Super Hero Squad, as a more child friendly character with claws- actually from the few episodes I have seen of this show- Weird sleep pattern, leave me alone- the only character that even attempts to be similar in some way, shape or form of the main bunch (Iron Man, Wolvie, Silver Surfer (I know right- his exestential angst will please the kiddies, but nope), Thor, Falcon (Haven't seen him in a while), and Hulk is Hulk, because he mentions his name in sentences- Hulk angry with annoying childrens show! Argghhh!
Ahh!, Let go of that tank, arrgghhh!.
..............................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................
...........................^^..................^-^_^^^^^^^^^^^^

- Sorry about that, I'm back again..ummm, but his films are owned by Fox, however the cartoon he is in his costume and not the black jumpsuit, so maybe it is easier to work around.


* Iron Man, at the moment 2 feature films, with another in the works, plus the Avengers, and if he makes appearances in Thor or Cap.

*Cap and Thor have one comming out this year each.

* Hulk has been bandied around a bit, but has had about 2 if you don't count the TV Show related movie.

So the Punisher a man who has a vendetta against crime, and is willing to use violent force ie guns, knives and explosives has in one alternative story killed the whole Marvel Universe, and has gone toe to toe with, you guessed it Archie, that Red haired kid who wanted to date both Betty, and Veronica....It is an interesting if unexpected read.

The point is, the Punisher is a character who is known to be an adult character, the movies featuring him are full of violence, he is gruff and often an outsider in the Marvel Universe. Basically I never thought I would see him relatively successfully transfered into a show like Super Hero Squad but the following movie proves me wrong, watch and enjoy;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-BD0nEg8h8




BRING ON GHOST RIDER AND DEADPOOL!