The reason big business is big is because it is providing what many people buy. Why do they buy it? Because they want it! If business does not provide what the masses want, it goes broke, simple as that.

So there's no use blaming the "big business" bogeyman.

And as for governments, I thought the entire justification for democratic governments is that they are supposed to represent what the people want? If it's true that they want to pay more for carbon-using products, then there'll be no need to force them, will there? So it's not true, or you wouldn't need any policy on it.

The idea that we are going to hell in a handcart is to me so hysterical, so self-indulgent, so reminiscent of mediaeval Christian flagellation parades, as to be ridiculous.

Of course China, India, Russia, Brazil, Indonesia, etc. etc. have no intention of participating in this foolery. They have more important priorities to focus on - like providing for the *real* welfare of their people. They have better things to do than sacrifice human life for the sake of spoilt westerners making a show of pious fretting.

So to achieve the purpose of a carbon tax, you're going to have to crank the price up real good - the entire extinction of the Australian economy should do it (but will not suffice) - but good luck with that politically. You're going to need it.

This stupidity is going into decline all throughout the world, the self-interested hysterics will have to go into some more productive activity to survive - perhaps cleaning toilets? - and all that will be left in a few years will be the curious records of this episode of mass delusion and the madness of crowds.

<< We can let the market set a genuine price for coal (which is what we're talking about, not "carbon")and we can reap the benefits of cheap, productive energy. >>

KenH, the market sets the price of coal without taking into account CO2 emissions or that fact that coal is supporting a rapidly expanding extent of humanity and per-capita consumption rate, which cannot be reliant on coal forever and simply must move to what are currently more expensive energy sources.

In other words, the market is setting a totally unrealistic price.

<< Or we can let governments "set a price"... >>

Yes. Even with all the imperfections of government, I’d much rather that this happened than we just continue with a totally unregulated or insufficiently regulated market-driven economy.

<< On what basis is the second option preferable? >>

On the basis that business as usual is just so grossly unsustainable and is taking us towards a massive upheaval, which by all accounts would be vastly bigger than any problems generated by stronger government regulation.

<< So there's no use blaming the "big business" bogeyman. >>

Peter, I don’t blame big business, I blame government.

<< And as for governments, I thought the entire justification for democratic governments is that they are supposed to represent what the people want? >>

Yes, almost entirely! And how often do we see what big business wants prevailing where it is at odds with what ordinary citizens want? Think high immigration, a big Australia, never-ending growth, coastal development and environmental alienation, just for starters.

It is not entirely the role of government to pander to the people. They’ve got be proactive as well, sometimes in the face of prevailing opinion.

<< The idea that we are going to hell in a handcart is to me so hysterical, so self-indulgent, so reminiscent of mediaeval Christian flagellation parades, as to be ridiculous. >>

Well! That says it all. We do indeed have the most total disagreement then.

Ludwig, just why should everyone have to conform to your ideas. You are obviously in the minority, even if that minority has, in the short term, managed to get the ear of government.

The only reason governments agree with you is they can see another source of income, to allow them to hide some of their incompetence.

The fact that you few want to dictate submission to your ideas says it all, really. The word is dictate. We even have radical ratbag members
of the green community wanting to suspend democracy for a time, to allow them to save the world. That is of course dictatorship, & it has never worked. It is also interesting to wonder if these elites could survive, let alone save any world, without us mere mortals providing the wealth for them.

Surely you don't agree with this. It would be better to lock up these megalomaniac, where they can do less harm. To have these fools running around in society is dangerous.

One of the main problems with these ideas is that they always come from the elites, often academia or the political class, who's members obviously exclude themselves from these limitations. All Gore anyone?

Ludwig
"On the basis that business as usual is just so grossly unsustainable and is taking us towards a massive upheaval, which by all accounts would be vastly bigger than any problems generated by stronger government regulation.

What do you mean "by all accounts"?

I have never seen *any* accounts of the downside of global warming policies by their advocates. Not even a beginning of an inkling of an understanding that there may be something more needed, than to point to alleged global warming, to *assume* a justification for whatever governmental attack on society that they dream of.

*How* do you account for the destruction these policies will do? For their detriments to human welfare? For their own particular destruction of the environment? For the deaths of people whose lives depend on fuel energies? I have never seen any warmist so much as admit that there may be an issue. How do you account for the reduction in standards of living of millions? What value do you assign for the uncertainty in the statistical models that are the basis for all this? How do you account for the value of current lives sacrificed, compared to the value of the future lives their sacrifice is supposed to secure? How do you take into account futurity? What discount or premium do you apply? To what? Why? How do you avoid the conclusion that sustainability requires that no-one may ever use the resource in question? In which case how is that different to saying these things must be your private preserve, to enjoy their non-use, while others die for the want of them? How do you decide who should receive an arbitrary benefit, and who should be forced to pay for it? What account do you take of the unintended consequences of future government action, of past government action, as against the benefits foregone from their waste? How do you calculate these values? What lowest common denominator do you use? How do you bring them to account? What negative consequence do their advocates personally suffer for getting it wrong?

Wow Peter, that’s a lot of questions – 20 in one post! ( :>o

I’ll just note one thing – if you were worried about the potential consequences of AGW, you could ask a very similar set of questions of those in the opposing camp.

That is: if you could envisage terrible consequences of keeping on with business as usual, you’d be asking the denialists and the vested-interest pro-growthers and their government bed-buddies questions like:

<< How do you account for the destruction these policies will do? For their detriments to human welfare? For their own particular destruction of the environment? >>

Etc, etc.

I find it absolutely extraordinary that you can consider all of the sorts of things that you pose in your questions and still manage to apparently have the most enormous blind spot to any evidence for AGW, or any problems with the continued rapid increase in fossil fuel consumption!

I wouldn’t have had too much of an issue if you had indicated that you were a climate sceptic, erring on the side of no significant problem with AGW, and if you showed some concern about never-ending expansion in both population and per-capita consumption. But to come out as a staunch business-as-usual climate denialist is just a big step too far for me.

It is just incomprehensible I’m afraid.

If you wish to continue with this discussion then fine, I’ll have a go, even though I don’t see much point to it.