rpg - very well, my apologies, I did misunderstand your post.

rstuart - look, Wikipedia has its uses but its too biased a source for reference.. the big assumption in the Stern report involved what's called the rediscount rate and it most emphatically was not accepted by a majority of economists. In fact, the low rediscount rate was almost universally condemned. (Perhaps one or two economists of any note agreed, and those were probably the ones quoted by Wikipedia.) There were other assumptions, all of which are disputed strongly, but the biggie was the rediscount rate. The economic cases for a CPRS is and remains almost non-existent.

Then there is the question of what evidence there is that a CPRS actually reduces emissions. You say there is some evidence but how could that be? The only existing CPRS worthy of the name is the European ETS, and it is difficult to identify any reductions that have occured because of its operation. If there is any change in any individual country emission figures its because they've done something like change the power industry from coal to gas or, worse, changed around the allowance for forestry carbon sinks. If you can point to any real world (as opposed to theoretical) study that shows the ETS has actually made any difference I'd be most interested.

It will take an election to clarify the situation.

I can understand why young people are concerned about climate change, they havent lived long enough to see any for themselves, just reacting to what they here,

After 70 years on this earth there is nothing new about our present climate. In the 50s and the 70s we saw just as many floods and earthquakes droughts and temperature changes, the same as our present.
The Lord God will bring this world to an end in His time, Man does not hold this world together.