579, I just cant get my head around your logic.

Of we cut back on our usage, the big poluters would not produce the power that we have cut, hence, w reduce emissions without having a tax on big business.

Anthon, you have hit the nail on the head when you say, THE WORLD. Not Australia, but the world.

Now, if it were the world that was introducing this tax, well that would be a whole different ball game, but they are not, and that's the cruts of the matter.

Also, tabbacco it's self is quite harmless. It's the additives that also burn that cause the problems.
Raw Mustard, what's also the problem is that we, one of the smallest emitters are trying almost single handed to solve a global prolem while the large emitters are doing very little.

I have no problem admitting there is some concern. I do have a problem trying to fix it on our own.

And just remember, if this t costs us what little manufacturing w have left, what then?

You may be happy to take that gamble, but I'm not.

Bring on the next election!

Hi rehctub,
I do have some sympathy with much of what you say, but this does confuse me.
You are unwilling to gamble on a possible negative impact on jobs, (although i would argue that pricing carbon will have a net effect of creating jobs), yet you seem to be sanguine about gambling with the entire planet.
Look, somebody has to go first. I think that, as the highest per capita polluters in the world, it should be us.
I believe that we will be one of the catalysts that will move the entire world to action.
I believe we should lead on this issue.
A great many movements that changed history began with a minority.
Take William Wilberforce. He looked at slavery and decided it was wrong. He was only one man, yet he took a stand that changed the course of history by eventually forcing England to abolish slavery.
And here's the thing. Powerful commercial forces that opposed him, that wanted slavery to continue, claimed that abolition would destroy the English economy.
In fact the exact reverse happened.
I believe in doing what is right, not what is perceived to be expedient, even if it is difficult.
I think you probably do too.
Cheers,
Anthony
Www.observationpoint.com.au

Anthonyve,

I'm not a supporter of the AGW theory but you make a nice point about standing up for what you think is right, even against great odds (with a good example). I cannot fault your principles.

However, my prediction is that no-one will care less what Australia does or doesn't do in respect of a carbon tax, so it will be like relieving yourself in a wetsuit - you feel nice and warm but no-one else notices. So please go and piss in your own wetsuit and leave mine alone.

In an earlier post, you suggested that 90% of the climate scientists believed in AGW (or words to that effect). I would suggest to you that this is equivalent to saying that 90% of practicing Christians (insert religion of choice) believe in God (insert deity of choice).

The AGW analogy to religion is quite strong - come up with an idea, work tirelessly to prove it is correct, create esoteric explanations for gaps in the theory, deny all opposition (plausible or otherwise) and then brand all opponents as heretics. Get other like-minded devotees to confirm that your version of the truth is right. Then, expect everyone to pay handsomely for the privilege of living with your concept. Oh, and don't forget the power vested in a small select group ...

Hmmm – actually that analogy could be applied to the so-called climate deniers too!

Somewhere in the middle there must be a rational argument ...

Anthonyve, Rehctub here.

I don't deny there is a problem, but why the tax?

Most of us have made huge efforts to reduce our emissions in the past decade, nome more so than in the past few years, so in essense, we are already reducing the effects of carbon.

My understanding is that the tax is simply something that they pay and, as long a they pay the tax they can continue to omit, am I right?

Now the other real issue is cost.

It would be far to say that 90% of those advising on this are on pretty good money and, they don't rely on 100% of thier income to live, however, despite the fact that the government says the masses will be compensated, do you honestly think they will not be out of pocket?

After all, this government has not go one thing right yet, so what makes you think they will this time around?

The fact of the matter is that if you reward people for using less carbon producing energy, they will use less, which means the producers generate less, which means we have the same net effect, which by the way is still next to nothing and, ... NO TAX!

And just remember, if one job is lost from this great new tax, then the likes of you are to blame.

So tell me, if this occurrs, will you and your supporters give an assurance that you will dip into your pocket and help support those who have been made to suffer?

Only if that happens!

you reward people for producing less carbon, where do these rewards come from. You penalize people for producing to much carbon. Only the big polluters will pay the tax. If you can not see the logic in that you are missing something serious. Hasbeen can't see how solar panels work, and rectub wants the people to pay for the polluters pollution. Your argument is wholly political, and not in the best interests of the people. The way of the liberal is for the rich to get richer, and the normal joe to tag along.

Change of mind is one thing we all share as people;however to turn your back on scientific evidence is stupidity and T A has doen so to scare and freighten us. He wants power but to gain this via a lie is not the right method. 'what a fraud of a person he is!'