Carbon Tax: Benefits = Nil; Disadvantages = Hit to hip pocket; Justification Offered = Questionable.

Alternative Energy: Benefits = Conservation of dwindling oil reserves, staving off acceleration of hazardous deep-ocean offshore drilling which presents increasing risk of severe environmental damage; Secondary Benefits = Potential to advance technology to more effectively utilise the most powerful, sustainable energy source in our solar system, the Sun; Tertiary Benefit = Potential to contain otherwise infinite increase in global CO2 emissions until science can determine the optimal atmospheric level necessary to maintain optimal weather patterns, and avoid or stave off onset of the next glacial period; Disadvantages = Hit to hip pocket; Justification = See above, and the following.

Argument in favour of sustainable alternatives: Benefits = Support for forest conservation (in offsets until alternatives are developed), giving hope for conservation of bees and other forest species, Development of the socioeconomic circumstances of Third World nations already practising sustainable agriculture - leading to higher education, reduced overpopulation and reduced disharmony and unrest, Potential to slow the rate of extinction of world wildlife and plant species, Potential to protect the marine environment from irreversible toxicity and species loss. Disadvantages = Temporary hit to hip pocket, which will be reimbursed many times over through reduction in conflict and world terrorism, improvements in technology and lifestyle, and maintenance of a balanced world ecology.

How? = Removing head from butt and pushing forward with technological development for the common good.

Why? = See above.

A quick heads up on insurance. It is a business! The CEO's will all use the alarmist nonsense to increase premiums knowing you will forget this in two years, savvy?
Oh yes remember the CFS's making a hole in the ozone layer? Well apparently we are producing twice as much of them and yet nary a word said?
Honestly you guys are beyond hope, it is all a big con and you are the cannon fodder and Billionaire Al Gore is the General. You make me laugh but as you do not make any contribution it will fall on my tax bill.
Oh the good news is there will be an election in 2013 or hopefully a lot sooner.

For nicco:

I guess we read from documents what we notice. I agree that the phrase 'climate change' is in the heading, and in the next sentence, but nowhere does it talk about human activity as a cause, and I was more struck by the reference to 'natural disasters'. and to the clause asking governments to 'harness risk management techniques and insurance expertise to help the developing world adapt to climate change'. And adaptation, not mitigation, is what I was proposing. As for the possible asteroid collision, due in around 2050, if I remember rightly, there are what look like perfectly sensible proposals to develop and send into space a craft able to break up the asteroid into smaller pieces that would do less or no harm to Earth. That was the expensive proposition I was referring to.

And I'm sorry that you think I'm bland and complacent. Of course, I don't see it that way, and tend to see positions like yours, as I understand it, as unduly scary and not well supported by evidence. You think you're simply stating the truth... But read on, in my next response to colinsett.

for Colinsett:

You can't have read a lot in this debate if you think I'm at the 'extreme'. I've written quite a bit about the shades of opinion in the AGW debate, and a summary is as follows. There are six obvious positions, and a few religious outriders.

Supporters

1 Strongest. The IPCC has raised the alarm. We must do something now, and that something is to get global agreement to curtail greenhouse gas emissions. The science is clear, and now is the time to act. This is fact the orthodox or IPCC position.

2 Partial Support. There is no doubt that adding more and more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere must increase the world’s temperature. But we don’t know yet how much extra warming there is likely to be.

3 Lukewarm support. Adding more carbon dioxide will very likely increase the temperature, but there are other factors at work too, and the effect may well be pretty small, or even positive for some parts of the world. We need to know much more before we do anything.

Dissenters

4 Agnostic dissenters. The orthodox arguments rely heavily on models and conjectures. AGW is plausible and possible, but we need real evidence before we do anything. In particular, we need to be able to distinguish AGW from natural variability. A little warming may be good for humanity, as it seems to have been over the past thirty years.

5 Sceptical dissenters. Many sceptics are well informed about one or other aspect of the central AGW proposition, and can show difficulties with it; they tend to argue that the failure of the orthodox to satisfy them in these domains means that the whole AGW proposition is void.

6 Opponents. AGW theory is just a scam, a sign that the Marxists have taken over the green movement, an attempt by some to construct world government, a conspiracy, a sign of lazy journalists, the effort of bankrupt governments to stay in power, etc. There is nothing to it.

I see myself as an agnostic dissenter.

Jennifer – You marched in support of Nuclear Disarmament because of (I assume) the possibility of the destruction of our planet as we know it. You march against a carbon tax because “you don’t believe carbon dioxide is a major driver of climate change” and therefore could not result in the destruction of our planet as we know it.

The overwhelming scientific evidence is that man has and is having an effect on climate. I believe the school is still out as far as the degree of its effect further down the track. It’s a bit unfair to hang Tim out to dry because of a wrong call and suggest that other unnamed scientists have been ignored. If the so called tipping point is reached there is no point in Nuclear Disarmament. Even if there is only a 50/50 chance of a man induced global climate event, don’t you think we should ere on the side of caution? Would you put your grandchildren on a plane that had a 50/50 chance of reaching its destination?

I personally believe that a carbon tax is a necessary start, but not the solution. The models that are being discussed by corporate political parties are I agree are nonsense. I believe any tax should be a consumption base one along the line suggested by Geoff Carmody.

A good idea is one that does not affect the person negatively, that thinks it’s a good idea

All very nice Saltpetre ... but, how is it to be paid for?