Nice attempt to bait and switch, but I think the main game, regardless of what an opposition says is the government.

I have to wonder at people trying this on, when the country is in turmoil

Anyway, it is clear in Australia after Rudd and Gillard, that nothing is held to account .. otherwise all of Rudd and Gillard's lies would be held up and they would be denounced, instead, we have articles calling attantion tot he opposition

no wonder we're in such a mess

Thanks Matt Grudnoff.

It's important to compare the alternatives.

If the so called 'sceptic's' were serious, they would download "The real cost of direct action: An analysis of the Coalition's Direct Action Plan" and actually read it.

They won't, and like Tony Abbott, will lambast not only the message you bring but all the economists that have spoken and written about Tony Abbott's alternative.

"...and requiring a large number of public servants to administer effectively."

Really! How many desk jockeys and chair warmers will be needed to administer Juliar's dogs breakfast of a scheme?

Whilst I agree with the general thrust of the article, that is, that the oppositions' scheme would cost too much and take too long to reach its goal, I would suggest that a thorough examination of the governments scheme also suffers from the same deficiency.

To get the sort of reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, which is 713 million tonnes, presumably in a year, would require the equivalent of not burning the rough equivalent of half a million tonnes of coal a day.

I would like someone to check my figures, but according to a rough back of an envelope calculation, that is the equivalent of building ten 500 megawatt atomic power stations.

Who is going to do that by 2020?

David

To Tony Abott:

No doubt got your ear full of 'experts' telling you how to deal with this tax for environment protection...aka carbon tax...

and no doubt a general message filtering through, that carbon tax is reaaaallly good, but implementation and delivery be different to labour's...dont think I should mention Julia's because while she's way over her head and demanding 'help me like I'm your fellow Australian/sister/mother/child' while peddling her party line, its not going to cut much these days...

well...ignore them all, and locate truly independent experts that have their own lives and no gain from this carbon tax...and ask them this...

'Current taxation system, where all taxes are dumped into a common pool from where they are taken out for various expenses, is it open to unaccountable misuse and abuse?...', no doubt we know the answer...

so next question...'is it wise to create a tax on the air we all breathe, which in effect is what carbon tax is...so allowing administrative control of what is natural...and what sort of future abuses may this possibly allow...'

and finally...and again we all know the answer...'would closed system taxation be more fair and effective'...as in say instead of carbon tax, a law that forces each manufacturing industry to take full responsibility of environmental_friendly recycling its products at life's end, and add this cost to products...so yes, cost would increase of say cars...but only to car buyers, more tax from each car sale(yay!),manufacturer gets car back to recycle, and properly remove what they cant, and knowing economics it wont be long before all manufacturing will ensure almost 100% recycling...

and most importantly the 'tax' is limited to its self by nature of how its implemented...and all then needs is every taxed cent in separate account and is only spent in supervising and enforcing and related expenses to its own area only...and tax rate changes to this alone...so initially would expect more 'tax' added to value of car, but when industry matures then tax would automatically decrease...and if doesnt then we know why and its easier to then track accountability...

regards

sam

Sparkyq, haven't you ever seen a government workforce anywhere?

Private enterprise would of course do the job with a dozen or so, & in fact the government will probably manage it with only a few hundred. However by the time the they have the full complement of managers, managers assistants, line managers, secretaries for the above, building managers, maintenance managers, cleaning supervisors, cleaners, & cleaning assistants, health & safety managers, H&S coordinators, advisers, & consultants, human relations consultants, managers secretaries & staff, training consultants, managers, train the trainers & trainers, councilors & councilor management, councilor councilors, Etc, they should be able to manage with oh, about 12,000.

That is to start with, once the empire builders get going they should be able to reduce unemployment in graduates of useless disciplines by at least a hundred thousand or so. This is a fine endeavour in it's own right, & probably what the entire global warming con is about in the first place.

From the public's point of view, this could be considered a lucky escape. If the tax plan, & its associated compensation & regulatory requirements has to be staffed, that could employ a quarter of a million in a couple of years. That will keep the employment figures up, despite all the industry closures, & loss of employment, it would precipitate.