Tiresomely to the point of stupidity, we continue to waste precious energy allowing every issue to become politically motivated .... arguing over how the deck chairs should be arranged instead of doing whatever it takes to avoid disaster.

"Carbon Tax or ETS" or "no carbon tax or ETS" that is NOT the question. A debate which does little more than delay action which arguably the vast majority of Parliament agrees is necessary.

What if as Chris Lewis reported on the March 24th speech of Lord Deben a former UK Secretary of State for the Environment, Britain’s carbon tax and EU have failed to reduce their true CO2 emissions in the period since 1990 they taxed Carbon?

If true, then labor may well be ignoring 20 year evidence that (dare I say it) Tony might just be right.

Regardless, much can be done without taxing the people.

In fact, to make everybody happy and as a "just in case they are right" action to avoid finding out in 2020 world climate change is irreversible, may I humbly suggest a drastic reduction of consumption and re-education of 8 million unemployed Australians rather than major importation of people, all of whom want to be just like us, incredible consumers, and thus ghg creators!

If as Lord Deben is reported to have said, “about one third China's carbon emissions in 2008 relate to the production of goods for export.”, then attributing the emissions to the producer and not the consumer is no more than a feel good (dare I say) smokescreen.

In the meantime we should also seek out practical ways of cutting emissions, BOTH CO2 and CH4, and focus on big business which looks to promote consumption and avoids “unnecessary” expense in providing for it.

For starters, how about a commitment to "no new generating licenses" for fossil fueled power stations, including existing stations, building renewables, wind, solar and, for the northwest, tidal to power the energy hungry ever expanding Iron Ore miners who could start now by electrifying their diesel driven railways.

Some good points, TeddyBear, but I wonder if our thoughts are falling on too many deaf ears, or those who will not see.

I'm satisfied Ms G is just wanting to make a good show about doing something, perhaps in a deal with The Greens on some unrelated issue (Super-Profits perhaps?), and she wants to make a spectacular splash.

After all, how much kudos is there in following the real science and simply investing in renewable and sustainable alternatives? And, she would have to go against Garnaut, after treating him as a god!

And, Garnaut has been pushing the same barrow for so long I wonder if he takes any notice of the school of economic thought that has determined that pushing renewables is the only path assuring positive reduction of emissions. I think he may be too proud of all the work he's done on this to now turn around a say he got it all wrong.

Ms G appears to be waving a magic wand of tax cuts alround, to gain support from the electorate (and make Tony Abbott look bad), but the house of cards relies on taxing carbon and taxing mining to do it.

I think taxing carbon is just an easy way out for Ms G, but, like the Insulation Infamy and the Education Escapade, this too will turn out to be a poisoned chalice, and Oz will be the one to suffer.

Meanwhile, China and Europe will continue on with sustainables, and we'll just be falling further behind, both in the science and in the fiscal capability to take truly effective action.

“I think taxing carbon is just an easy way out for Ms G, but, like the Insulation Infamy and the Education Escapade, this too will turn out to be a poisoned chalice, and Oz will be the one to suffer.”

You make an important point Saltpetre. Why should voters trust Labor with the world if they can’t even provide pink batts without deaths?

“A debate which does little more than delay action which arguably the vast majority of Parliament agrees is necessary.”

TB: Debates don’t delay action they save lives. If we had more debates on say the pink batts lives would have been saved.

Surrendering our nation to UN-serving bureaucrats is bad policy. For those genuinely concerned though, they can live in grass huts, and save all their fury for energy-hungry movie stars and Labor heads.

On the "Insight" program on this issue last night, I didn't catch anyone asking the vital questions:

1. "IF electricity producers will be able to pass on the increased production cost (under a carbon tax), HOW will that provide ANY incentive to invest in low emission or renewable technology??"
(Answer: WHAT?; a higher price will be sufficient to induce massive private equity investment in alternative energy development - with no guarantees, no subsidies, no tax-breaks?? Think again!)

2. "IF electricity-intensive industry is to be compensated for their higher costs, WHAT INCENTIVE DO THEY HAVE for investing in low emission or lower energy consumption alternatives??"

3. "WHY is the debate all about taxing electricity producers, AND THEN they start talking about increased petrol prices?? What's the correlation?? We are missing something!" "Isn't it time Ms G came clean with the Oz public, and revealed the full detail of this proposed tax, so that people can make a properly informed decision??"

4. "If European countries can mandate more energy-efficient standards on all new vehicles, WHY CAN'T WE do the same - on all new vehicles, home made or imported??"

5. "IF the objective is genuinely to reduce emissions (and not just a tax-grab as I have previously suggested), THEN the only effective mechanism must surely be the development of low emission technology - AND NOT, as Garnaut has suggested, for Oz consumers to reduce their consumption JUST BECAUSE IT WILL COST MORE!" "(AND, of course, this would mean that they could keep more of Ms G's handout!) Some would call this BRIBERY? (Or Blackmail?)

5. "INSTEAD of creating a whole mess of confusion and money-shuffling, WHY CAN"T our government just bite the bullet and i) SET EMISSION LIMIT TARGETS, and ii) INVEST in the development of RENEWABLE TECHNOLOGIES?? (including paying bounties to farmers who plant trees and/or embark on soil sequestration initiatives), AND iii) ADMIT that the budget has a fair few 'black holes', and PROMISE that any review of the tax system will only be along lines recommended by the Henry Tax Review and Depts of Treasury/Finance!"

Saltpetre: SBS is known for stacking shows with politically-correct guests so I’m not surprised to hear that certain questions weren’t asked.