The title should read,"Price carbon and face a bleek future." just yesterday I hear that the volcano in Iceland is due to global warming.Really? So earthquakes etc and now due to man burning carbon.So I suppose CO2 caused Fukushima to melt down.This this flat earth science.

The Sun is the prime driving force of climate and it works in cycles.So in the 1960-70's the CO2 was going to cause an ice age,then it is Global Warming, now it is Climate Change.Would someone please make up their mind? Extreme climate conditions have existed right throughout our history.The Sun will reach it's 10 yr maximum next yr and go quiet for the next 30 yrs.That is the predicted cycle.

Nothing we do will change anything.They have admitted that.According to the AGW experts,even if we stop buring all fossil fuels tomorrow,nothing will change for the next 1000 yrs.So what's the hurry? Yes it is all about taxes to service unneceessy debt and a new derivative called ETS for the share market that will give the big players even more power.

Yet another fact free pep talk from one of the warmest brigade.

When will they learn.

The free ride is over. Give us some evidence or take a hike, we're no longer susceptible to the idle chatter of alarmists.

Arjay and Hasbeen,
are like a cracked record about the warming science and about natural catastrophes which they have no evidence of .

As of yesterday tornadoes are now the worst on record according to US met records and the tornado season is not over yet. The massive loss of glacier ice on Iceland may have the volcano eruptions more likely. As for the the peak of 2012 sunspot activity it might take out the US power grid and bring hell to US urban areas. Totally reliant on coal based electricity.

The lunacy of the carbon tax is summed up by his statement No 1:

"Electricity generators using fossil fuels would continue operating as before and the price of electricity would rise"

Duh, so there are no changes in emissions, only the cost of living. Maybe the title of this thread should be:

Price carbon and face a bleak future

When I read the opposition to carbon reduction schemes, "we will all be ruined if we do this" I am reminded of the howls from the vehicle industry over emissions connrols in the 1970s and 80s. These were going to destroy our way of life in the west. Instead we have seen cars with much more efficient engines which pollute far less (but not enough)than the clunkers in our cars back then.

If we make the right rules about carbon the industries will quickly adapt and we might just save the world.

I for one do not want to have to tell my grandchildren that we blew a window of opportunity and they have to pay....

Unlike some of the comments so far, I do support Mike Pope’s tenet. We do need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the industries that are bleating will not face a catastrophic future as a consequence. If they move with the times.

I am less supportive of some of his comments. When he asks the (I suspect rhetorical) question “Should we believe politicians who tell us that Australia will be providing a fair contribution to reducing global emissions by making a 5% reduction in its emissions by 2020 when other countries are making 25% reductions?” he fails to understand the comparison. A 5% reduction from 2000 levels in Australia is equivalent to a 25% reduction in Europe. The important issue he either doesn’t understand or glosses over is that we are taking about a reduction from business as usual in 2020 for both regions. Australia is growing much more rapidly than Europe and will continue to do so. To ignore this and make direct comparisons is nonsense.

His view that “generators using fossil fuel will face increasing competition from low and no emission generators such as wind, hydro, importantly geothermal and, more importantly in the longer term, from solar energy” fails to recognise the limitations of some of the quoted technologies and the time frames involved. It is likely that fossil fuel generators looking to reduce GHG emissions will never face serious competition from wind. Hydro resources in Australia are largely utilised already. Geothermal in Australia may still be decades away – if ever, given the technology difficulties with hot rock geothermal systems. At least he recognises that for solar to be a serious competitive will take time.

He fails to mention the one technology best placed to replace fossil fuels, nuclear power. Our government needs to urgently review its policy here if it has any chance of reaching it’s emission reduction targets for 2050.