sbr108 Well spotted Sir, thats exactly what the government are doing, taxing the air, well a part of it anyway. Water is also going the same way.
Nico, pay attention, the Insurance industry have a vested interest in increasing premiums this nonsense you and you mates preach plays right into their hands. Also mate I have been around long enough to know what the insurance companies are capable of.

Well put, sbr108. This is the first time anyone has tried to put this issue really into perspective. A magical clarification. Congratulations, and thank you.

>> Doing the Maths on CO2 Reduction

It is well known that people find it hard to understand very small and very large numbers - and hence climate change deniers exploit this to make it seem like small amounts can't have much effect (ignoring positive and negative feedback loops which may amplify an initial input).

Try this short quiz and then please reconsider your "small numbers" I have tried to stick to parts per ?? as standard units.

1. What is the concentration of ozone molecules in the ozone layer (in parts per million)?

2. What is the concentration of Chlorine molecules in the ozone layer that are depleting it (in similar units as above)?
If you can find data on the sub-types of chlorine molecules that are man made (vs naturally occurring) - you get bonus marks!

"Climate change deniers" I hate that term. The Believers can't handle the idea individuals might research the available information, balance it and come to a conclusion that differs from the IPCC's propaganda. So they create the name 'Deniers' and present it as though anyone with that viewpoint is evil.

Carbon is not pollution! The world has been warming since the last ice age, and more so since the mini ice age a couple hundred years ago.

To the Believers I say consider these facts in the big picture - (1) it is much easier to live in a warm climate than an extremely cold climate. (2) Your concerns over the effects of warmer temperatures on future generations pale in comparison to what the impacts of population growth over the same period will be. (3) Australia has not created the so-called problem so why should Australians be expected to accept a tax that won't bring one iota of change to the climate. (4) not even the climate scientists who believe in man-made global warming are blaming climate change for the recent extreme weather, earthquakes, floods and other natural disasters. (5) The current Government has proven it cannot manage one single program efficiently or without some kind wasteful use of tax payers money. ($350 for a set-top box most recently) Do you really trust them to use the funds gained from a carbon tax in a beneficial way?

In my view anyone who supports the carbon tax is either ill informed, gullible, brain washed, far to 'politically correct' or possibly just plain stupid.

sbr108 first "does some maths" (I use the term lightly) without demonstrating s/he understands the science.

sbr108's last paragraph is more enlightening, though:

>> In my view anyone who supports the carbon tax is either ill informed, gullible, brain washed, far to 'politically correct' or possibly just plain stupid. <<

sbr108 demonstrates that science has got nothing to do with the "debate" (despite some so called "research" on his/her part) ... it's all about political ideology and socio-cultural point scoring.

sbr108 would do much better (and gain more credence) if sbr108 could constructlively add to the debate we have to have, rather than parroting strawman arguments, invoking ire and invective, and raising the negativity bar that "opponents" (for want of a better term) are now so well known for.

Maybe those who don't like my calculations can point out what is wrong with the figures.