Perhaps the young demographic sector should spend less time indulging in new drinking games and in watching climate fiction horror fantasies produced by and starring Al Gore and his mates, and do a little research. Mankind's puny emissions of carbon dioxide are nothing as compared to naturally occurring cataclysms. We can, if we are so stupid, destroy the carbon fuel based economy which has transformed our society from one of drudgery and poverty to the prosperous society we enjoy in Australia today, by bringing in a 'Big New Tax' (whoops, there go the vodka shots again). But leave your TV and get out into the real world where endless examples show the power of nature, and the impotence of man to 'change the climate' for better or for worse. An excellent example is on:
http://www.quadrant.org.au/Walter%20Starck.pdf

You work in "health and social policy development in Canberra. She is the Youth Ambassador for the Office of the (OCSE)"

So inventing drinking games to make fun of the "hated" opposition is something you're proud of, and you work in health? Have you heard of the government's issue with binge drinking? The government you seem to think is worthy of support over that awful mob the opposition? Hey, how about a shot of tequila every time some one in government mentions "Workchoices", or "working families", you and your mates will be drunk constantly..

It seems to me your friends might be described as a "spoiled brats and little princess's who throw tantrums when they don't get their own way" I'm sure that's not the message you intended to portray but it certainly seems to be in the realms of possibility.

"The young people I talk to still want to see Australia lead the world on climate change, but they are so sick of the debate that they’ve disengaged" what a bunch of wimps, you don't instantly get your own way, you all give up. At least now, as you say, there is actually some debate, more like fanatical attack by AGW believers on the skeptical heretics though.

You seem to think politician's election promises are all going to be kept - wake up, grow up, this is the real world. It's not just for your generation, we got here by older generations paying the way - when you pay your way, you'll understand.

BTW - Taxation is not trivial "Frankly, it’s pathetic that one of our leaders would assign such dramatic language to a tax." we're talking billions of dollars that could be spent on hospitals, education, roads, water and you would like to see it all used for .. what? Giving away to underdeveloped countries, like China, India? We're minuscule int he scheme of things, we're not a big player or heavy hitter - no one cares what we do. We could disappear tomorrow and our emissions would be replaced by China in 16 weeks, think about that.

The simple reality is that post-Copenhagen any action on climate change by Australian politicians would be politically fatal. CPRS was meant to be the most important legislation of Rudd's administration. Since Copenhagen silence. He was not even invited to the key meetings giving the lie to how important it was for Australia to pass the CRPS legislation.

Obama has not said a word about climate change since Copenhagen either.

India and China are far more worried about getting their people out of poverty than worrying about climate change. The reality is that the new world leadership is now the G20. Any power the UN had has gone and the because of the GFC the power of the US and G8 to effect change has been (fatally?) weakened.

Putin left the conference early quickly realising which way the wind was blowing. Obama left after 14 hours. You only know the truth when people vote with their feet.

As the previous comment notes the science is dubious. Even more important the CPRS scheme as proposed by Labor would be a economic disaster. It would be a legal night mare to unwind. The only group really keen on the CPRS concept are the investment bankers who know it would a great chance to make money. Lehman Brothers did not hire Al Gore as a consultant out of the goodness of their heart but to make serious money.

Dear Maiy, where can we begin? I really don’t know where you’ve been for the past four months? Too many Vodka shots perhaps?

Lets’ just cover some basics first. You speak of “climate change” and then confuse the subject with a CPRS.

Climate change has been a feature of our planet since the Romans clear felled much of the Mediterranean. There are thousands of examples of man made climate change at local and even regional levels, nothing whatsoever to do with carbon emissions. I know of very few, even on OLO who would disagree with this.

Then you speak of a CPRS which is a “solution” to the theory that residual atmospheric carbon is a “pollutant” and causes the greenhouse effect and thus “global warming”.

I refer you to some groups of information.

1. Under oath and legal advice before the UK parliament, Prof. Phil Jones has made statements that reduce the AGW theory to “exaggerated conservationist propaganda”
2. Following some “post Copenhagen” political analysis by some very smart people, the political will for Carbon Taxes of any description has evaporated. (you will note that yesterday, the French electorates have now also dumped their plans)
3. If you wish to understand why the IPCC and the CRU has lost all credibility, get yourself a copy of the “US Senate Minority Report in to the CRU”. This lists many pages of indictments against AGW “predictions”. These indictments are likely to feature in many of the 16 litigation notices lodged against the US EPA.
4. This week, the German press ran articles of concern that if they legislated for a CPRS, with whom could they trade? We might well ask the same question.
5. The European (EU) Carbon market has, in just six months, gone from 46 Euro’s per ton, to 18.4 Euro’s per ton and on Monday this week it hit 1 Euro per ton.

Since the CPRS is the answer to AGW and NOT climate change, you need to stop obfuscating and explain why Australia should buy into this Euro-centric financial suicide.

I think it is morally weak for Australia not to lead in emissions reductions. Our per capita CO2 is an appalling example to the rest of the world. Worse we are an emissions pimp by gleefully finding new customers for coal and LNG. I've seen the figure of 428 million tonnes of combined production for domestic brown coal and for domestic or exported black coal which will create over a billion tonnes of CO2 when it locks with oxygen. That's perhaps 3% of world net emissions yet Australia has only 0.3% of world population. One day there will be a crisis over food or water supply for which climate change do-nothings can take some responsibility. Some might suggest the way Australia already depends on desalination and freak storms shows the crisis has already arrived.

Even if AGW weren't true there are good reasons to use less fossil fuel. We need a smooth transition to a future based on clean energy. We should bite the bullet and make some moderate sacrifice now rather than a panic later. When and if it all goes bad those who did nothing will be pilloried.

Azize - look, I hate to upset your dreams but there is simply no point to a CPRS, now that any hope of any international agreement vanished with the Copenhagen Conference. Any economic trade off was doubtful enough as it was, but without an international agremement such a scheme would be, at best, an expensive ideological gesture. Do we really want expensive gestures?
Nope! If you really believe in the various dire scenarios forecast by the IPCC, the only real path is mitigation. Get rich; build barriers; buy air conditioning.
Activists hate being told that. They want the gesture to "show leadership", but we live in a democracy and to be fair people must be informed that its an expensive gesture. If they then want an expensive gesture so be it, but lets fully inform everyone first.