Shadow Minister - quite right, Gen X have become so concerned that they think strong action should be taken by their parents, who should also pay.
While on the subject of being concerned Lucy should also note that a la Nina is on the way - scientists can at least agree on that - abd quite a strong one too, so temperatures will plunge irrespective of whether the global warming science is right or not.
Get out your winter woolies kids..

Lucy

as you grow up you will tend to demand evidence before introducing an ets on pensioners who can't pay heating bills due to the big freeze. You will realise that the climate has always changed and like Ms Gillard you will come to the conclusion that its not our biggest moral dilemma as a nation. You will learn that if Australia cut all emissions it would be stuff all in the context of the world. If you are worried about emissions your energy would be well harnassed by supporting the nuke industy. Otherwise you are just playing childish games encouraging money to be wasted that could be used to cut power bills for those who have paid for you to attend a plush uni.

"CO2’s" credibility is immediately questioned when he refers us to the SPPI link when founder and president Robert Ferguson, a past recipient of Exxon’s generosity, draws heavily on papers written by extremist, Christopher Monckton who traffics in falsehoods and absurd conspiracy theories.

Monckton and Ferguson have no more qualifications to speak as authorities on the science of climate than "CO2".

But who funds SPPI? 'On its website, the group discloses nothing about its funding sources, and does not say if it has a policy on what types of funding it will or won't accept. Asked directly whether SPPI receives funding from companies with energy interests, Ferguson was not forthcoming. "Funding comes from private interests," he said. "That's all I'm going to say."' (Centre for Media and Democracy)

Monckton is a dead set escapee from a Monte Python skit and one can assess how scientifically strong his case is if he has to go on the Glenn Beck Programme to present it – unchallenged to a fawning host.

Rush Limbaugh who told an African American female caller to ‘take the bone out of your nose and call me back,' seizes on comments by Christopher Monckton to continue the fear-mongering.

97% of self-identified, actively publishing climate scientists agree with the tenets of anthropogenic climate change but the monkeys and their organ grinders don’t read scientific papers so they dance to the tune of the fossil fuel industry.

As another member of Gen Y (albeit at the older end of the Gen Y spectrum), I'd like to offer a different perspective here.

I, and many people I know, am not foolish enough to believe that I know more than the scientists about climate change. And, as scientists themselves are quite often funded by far-from-impartial benefactors, it is unsurprising that they present contradictory findings on quite a regular basis. Some say we are stuffing our planet up completely, others say we are not. The truth probably lies somewhere in between.

From where I am sitting right now (in the rain, in winter, in Townsville - bizarre) it makes little difference to me. I will no doubt be dead, buried and quite well on my way to compost before our quality of life is compromised if - and I say it again, if - climate change is a real issue. Selfish? Certainly. But with no kids of my own to worry about, and none looming on my immediate horizon, I have the luxury of that selfishness.

However, regardless of the truth (or otherwise) behind the climate change scare, I think the scare itself is quite useful. It is forcing us (or some of us) to rethink the way we do things, so that we can do them in a more sustainable fashion. Businesses are installing low energy light bulbs, turning their air conditioners up a degree or two and recycling more. We are looking at ways of cleaning up our energy sector. We are offering both rods and carrots to industry to encourage more sustainable practices. Are all of the ideas being floated good? Certainly not. Are they practical? Not necessarily. But, if we can identify ways of going about our lives without significant extra burden and with a smaller carbon footprint, how can that possibly be a bad thing?

Otokonoko, true a scare story can be useful. the trouble is that it is being used to justify a regressive tax (increases in electricity prices). These hit pensioners far harder than the wealthy. If it was a matter of simply refitting office buildings it could all be ignored.

Protagoras - what does the funding of SPPI have to do with the debate? If we are going to look at funding by all means let us examine the budgets of Greenpeace of WWF and a host of other environmental organisations. (All many times larger than SPPI.) Then ask yourself are you going to ignore their reports? If we start arguing about vested interests or who is crazier than all the green guys and almost all the scientists (who accept funding for research on the basis that global warming exists) would be knocked out first.
Those living in glass greenhouses should not throw stones.

That's what I'm saying, Curmudgeon - though probably not very eloquently. I have holiday brain at the moment.

I'm reluctant to support massive changes that will have an adverse effect on our society, or even simply on part of our society. But I do think that, if we have sustainability at the front of our minds, we are better equipped to make decisions and put practices in place that improve our physical environment and, ultimately, improve our quality of life. Little things count: Ergon tells me each quarter how my power consumption stacks up against others in the Herbert and Lower Burdekin region. Doing that makes me conscious of my power usage and, being a naturally competitive person, I put practices in place to do better each time. Will I single-handedly save our climate? No. But it's a start. If we all did the little things that are within our means, then the scare would have served a positive purpose as we move on to other worrying things.