I don't believe in a carbon tax because it's only an encouragement, aimed ultimately at manufacturing, to produce cleaner forms of industrial practice and commodification. There is no encouragement for the consumer to simply consume "less" (from electricity to commestables), to possess less, to indulge less (holidays, sporting and entertainment fixtures, travel), to reproduce less, to have smaller houses and altogether to live "much" more modestly. Massive campaigns by governments encouraging populations to adopt such lifestyle changes, at home and at the workplace (in many cases they could become one), would have far more impact on reducing carbon emissions than imposing a tokenesque tax, with offsets, that will do nothing to change habits. But of course living more modestly would send our economies into spin-dives! We can only stay economically-vibrant by maintaining our conspicuous consumption--it'd be heaven if it wasn't such a crock!
And that is the awful dilemma confronting capitalist societies: consume less and die economically, or keep consuming and die ecologically. It's as stark as that! It's pure fantasy supposing we can maintain (in fact grow) consumer capitalism while reducing emissions.
We need to reduce emissions "and" cut consumption, and that's the death knell for capitalism!
But it won't happen; too many vested interests, too much money at stake, and altogether too many creature comforts to give up.
A carbon tax is the first feint at the fantasy of clean technologies and production and reduced emissions in a paradigm of endless economic growth.
It's about time the dim-witted masses woke up, but even those who aren't minimifidianists are deluded. They're far too optimistic!

"But the trigger for the electorate making the best informed decision rests with science and the news media to shape, and to not follow, public opinion on action for climate change."

One can hear the note of exasperation: "Jeez, just tell the people what they ought to think, why don't you?" Then we can get on with imposing new laws, extracting new taxes, rewarding the scientists for their cooperation and providing the media with juicy new scare stories for another ten years or so. What a shame that the actual global temperature -- you know, that thing we're all supposed to be panicking about -- has been flat for fifteen years. But what the hell -- make enough noise and perhaps nobody will notice.

bonmot, I think you missed the point about the media, not to worry, you can always read it again when you have the time.

As far a backing up EQ's figures, sorry, I don't do science, I leave that to the scientists.

Squeers
You seem to be missing the point that the purpose of human action in general, and economic activity in particular, is to satisfy human wants. If people *wanted* to restrict their consumption, it would be no objection that such was bad for economic growth.

The exhortations of the new puritans remind me of the ascetisism of the early Christian church. The pleasures of consumption are immoral. Presumably we should live in a hut in a clearing in the woods, mortify our body for the good our soul, and live on water of the pure well.

The point is, people *don't want* to live in dimly-lit rooms without electrical appliances, stop going places for their holidays, and spend their leisure time recycling plastic bottles for their sins, as the modern ascetics urge on them. On the contrary, people want to live full, healthy lives, have families, have nice houses, eat nice food, and see the world!

Your idea that the state should "encourage" (what's that supposed to mean? people not to consume so much has it back-to-front.
a) Government is far more wasteful of resources than ordinary people, they are in no position to preach, in case you haven't noticed, and
b) government is supposed to be the servant, not the master of the people, remember?
c) no-one has established any reason why they shouldn't, apart from by ASSUMING an ugly amalgam of Malthusian/Marxian fallacies that consumption and capitalism are immoral.

It is nothing but pious hypocrisy to look down on everyone in the world for their desire to enjoy life, urge for policies to restrict them - while all the while yourself enjoying a first world lifestyle by virtue of the capitalism and consumption that you criticise. If it's irredeemable, and you think carbon is a pollutant, stop consuming goods mass produced using fossil fuels!

Whatever you lot think of the carbon tax, consumption or capitalism, the reality is we have exceeded the biocapacity of the Earth and we have to reduce our consumption, stabilise population and move away from fossil fuels until we get back to within the carrying capacity of the Earth. Climate change is but one manifestation of the fact that we are in 'overshoot'. As for the people demonstrating today against the carbon tax outside Parliament House, all I can say is that you are making the world for my children and grandchildren unliveable.

Hurrah

Finally, at least someone has begun to scientifically analyze the problem, and to define it in terms of risk.

Hurrah

Risk is basically a product of likelihood and consequence.

http://www.scu.edu.au/risk_management/index.php/4/

We know the probable consequence of worldwide climate change.

What is not certain is the likelihood that it is occurring, or could occur.

Without knowing likelihood, then the overall risk cannot be properly estimated.

We need more facts about likelihood.

What is a cause for alarm, is if the majority of the public (and members of government) do not know enough about science to understand basic climatology.

That is not necessarily a fault of the public or members of government. It is primarily a fault of our education systems that have failed to educate the public and members of government in basic science.