bonmot, except I cannot see what pricing carbon will do aside from getting us used to be taxed, additionally for energy .. we already pay tax when we earn money, pay tax when we buy fuel, then you want more tax depending on our socioeconomic circumstance .. Yes?

So what's the good of it?

If we want to fund R&D, we do that now.

What's the point of a very specific tax being paid this way?

How is that adapting?

We just have to pay the tax, there is a point at which we cannot use less fuel, energy without impacting our quality of life .. so we won't do it, which means, we just pay the tax without it having any effect on lifestyle, it will not change our behavior.

So what's the point?

If we resent it, then the next party that comes along and says, we'll do away with it, will get voted in.

It's a short sighted attempt at a fix and does nothing except make the eco virtuous feel good, the rest of us think it is a waste and a con. Argue if you like, but that's the feeling of the community . and if Gillards propaganda squad and all the money spent as rpg says, is not changing opinion, in fact the opposite ..

so again, what's the good of it?

Insurance is voluntary. Carbon tax is not going to be voluntary.

Why not let all those who really believe in man made global warming join up Julia's little charade and let all of us who don't believe in this nonsense to get on with our lives.
Why should I pay for someone else's beliefs. Anyone with a brain can see that this is a ploy to get into our pockets again. Most sensible people know that the United Nations is a vacuum for sucking money from those who have worked hard for it and their elite members then dip into the funds for their own benefit.
They must think that they have managed to dumb us all down. They have done a pretty good job in the universities and schools, but there are still some of us around who are a wake up to the bulldust.

Whether insurance is voluntary or no, the insurance business is quite hard-nosed and dislikes losing money. This is why the international insurance community is taking climate science seriously, and accepting the linked proposition that climate is changing, and that human activity can mitigate this. The CEO of Munich Re (Australasia), Heinrich Eder, who is also a Director of the Insurance Council of Australia, says: "It’s nothing new to say that climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time. While we have climate change already, what we do today is crucial for future generations. Swift international action is urgently needed, and therefore a truly international agreement with stringent emission reductions and a broad participation by the main emitters is a critical part of the success."

nicco "This is why the international insurance community is taking climate science seriously, and accepting the linked proposition that climate is changing, and that human activity can mitigate this."

nice twist, well done mate - now I understand why the eco alarmist movement is all about .. why did I not realize this before

We can mitigate climate change! We can stop the climate changing, it's not as if human activity might or might not be adding to it, we're way past that aren't we? (and into the land of eco alarmist fairy tales)

So the conclusion is that without human activity, there would be no climate change .. of course, it's so obvious

do you ever wonder why AGW and eco alarmism is losing traction? I'm sending this to a bunch of friends, they will LOL at the reasoning of the alarmist. Do you think the Australian public, listening to idiot reasoning like this, wonders whether our hard earned money should be quarantined from the fools who want to play silly buggers?

The longer this goes on though, the more hilarious and stupid the alarmist lobby gets.

bonmot and Amicus,

Paradigm shift v Carbon tax.

Carbon tax is no answer, particularly if Oz is odd man out and everyone impacted is reimbursed.

If a tax is applied to coal, oil, gas at point of origin, thereby increasing production costs to all users, we will all pay. If the tax is applied at direct user level, we will all pay. Left at that, where is there a compelling incentive to reduce consumption or to invest in green alternatives? It will be harder for manufacturers to compete with imported product, so will they invest in alternative methods, or just ship their enterprise overseas? Household consumers may try initially to reduce consumption, but how long could that last? Immediate increase in CPI, calls for wage and salary increases - back to square 1. If Oz producers and households are given tax breaks or subsidies to offset higher costs, it all goes back, but below, square 1. No-one wins.

Alternative: Step 1. Stop wood chipping, and establish local and international re-afforestation fund - to pay for replanting and establishment of a mass plantation timber industry worldwide (could save Amazon rain forest, heritage environments, etc); Step 2. Invest in agricultural sequestration - which can increase food production efficiency at the same time; Step 3. Set future industry emission targets and provide tax breaks, subsidies and grants to bolster investment in renewables, low-emission and low-consumption technologies and investment in offsets; Step 4. Review world manufacturing and food production and foster shifting of both to areas of lowest emission footprint - third world agriculture, increased use of hydro and solar powered industry; Step 5. Assist Third World to establish local biomass electricity facilities.

Who will pay for forest fund? All First World governments - us included, on a national emissions scale. Ditto to pay for the rest. How will the First World benefit? Reduced food and consumer product prices, increased food and product manufacturing efficiencies, reduced carbon footprint, reduced world poverty and inequity, reduced world conflict.

Can it happen? Yes we can!

Once again Amicus demonstrates a failure to understand even the basics of climate science, and resorts to abuse to make his point.

Amicus, try and understand: climate naturally changes, and always has. Human civilisations have developed during a short and relatively stable geological period, the holocene, which favours human activities such as cropping and pastoralism.

Basic physics tells us that carbon dioxide, a trace gas in the atmosphere, has always had a 'greenhouse' effect, which maintains the stability of the global temperature. Human activities since the Industrial Revolution have changed the composition of the atmosphere, adding CO2. This is having an effect on global climate, as extra heat is trapped in the atmosphere. This is happening on top of normal climate variation and on top of the natural greenhouse effect. And, yes, it is possible for us to mitigate this added effect by reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.