The author already can see the demise of a Carbon Tax and is setting up to argue that regardless, there is still a problem .. with the message (not the science, that's no longer in the debate)

"While carbon-pricing mechanisms might captivate bureaucrats and policy wonks, I’m not convinced that it has won the hearts and minds of Australian citizens. If the carbon price policy resonated with ‘mainstream’ Australia the policy would have much higher support public polling"

No sugar Sherlock! What a realization that is eh?

With all the money being poured into framing the message, with a traveling climate propaganda circus (independent, but selling the government message .. a new definition of independent arises), with all the "science" available and still there is doubt in the community.

Why is that?

With this government, we have learned that spin and BS are what they do best, second best is wasting money.

This sounds like another round of both, to the average working family, and of course, a new Great Big Tax.

The government doesn't know how much it will be, or what it will do to mitigate "climate change", but it's a good idea and anyone against it is a wrecker. (or citizens leery of another tax, levy, surcharge, call it what you will .. but it's the government with their hand in my wallet and not able to live within the budget they already have)

Sure we can make progress towards reducing GHG emissions without a price on carbon but it requires governments to pick winners rather than letting the market decide how best to go about it.

So far in this area, the governments' record (and I do mean all governments) has not been a stellar one. We have spent billions of dollars on wind farms, solar PV panels, home insulation and energy efficiency through government financial incentive programs, without any notable reduction in GHG emissions.

I cannot see this sorry state of affairs changing without involvement from the market that is much better at deciding which horses to back to reduce emissions. The best way to get the market involved is to hit them where it hurts. If you emit emissions you have to pay. Some in the market don’t like this idea and are squealing like stuck pigs. What better proof that it is likely to work the way you want when the worst offenders are the ones that squeal the loudest.

We need political backbone not public servants making poor policy decisions.

Unless, of course, you are not convinced that Carbon Dioxide is a polutant. Then any moves to increase the cost of energy is dangerous and much be resisted.

Leigh Ewbank’s high falutin rhetoric obscures his real message, which is: “all the technology for decarbonising the economy is available and the government just needs to get on with it. What’s more, there are lots of decarbonising projects that we can easily elevate to the status of ‘nation-building infrastructure’, which makes them politically palatable, even tasty”.

I hope that, stripped like this to its bones, Leigh’s argument automatically loses its statesman-like gloss. But just in case it doesn’t, here is why it can safely be ignored.

All the technology needed is not available, except in bits and at chaos-causing cost. So nothing happens without ‘government loan guarantees’, ‘US military renewable energy targets’, DOE initiatives ‘aiming … for …unsubsidised’ solar electricity (as if that was not the aim 40 years ago when they started), $53 billion of US Federal money for high speed rail, and so on. You get the drift. It’s government all the way. And that’s just about electricity. Has Leigh figured how to make cement without releasing carbon dioxide. Or running a steelmaking blast furnace? Let’s ask President Obama, because no-one else seems to know.

Martin N is right, as far as he goes. Governments won’t solve this problem. To the extent that there are solutions, they will come from the market. But there will be a cost. Government does have a role in preparing the electorate for the cost of fighting climate change. Sadly, telling voters that something will cost more is something governments are even worse at than picking winners

If Juliar was to set the price of carbon similar to the average in Europe of about $6 a ton, and set to match the other major economies in the future, Labor would not be getting such a hiding.

If Juliar wants to set an example, then do it in a fashion that does not flog the already struggling manufacturing sector.

So where is the proof that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant? Where is the evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are causing dangerous climate change? Where is the evidence that natural causes of climate change are less important than anthropogenic CO2? What about the other anthropogenic impacts on local and regional climate - urbanisation, land-use, deforestation, industrial agriculture, interference with natural hydrological cycles?

I am afraid that until a credible case is advanced that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a serious problem, that CO2 is a pollutant, I remain sceptical of the need for a carbon tax, and sceptical of any moves to decarbonise the economy.

I think that you will find that more and more people, when they look at the evidence (more accurately lack of evidence), will reach a conclusion similar to mine.