Well, no, that isn't why people are called denialists. It is usually because they deny the science.

If people were given the choice of frugal comfort that was sustainable they may well choose this.

They so far aren't being offered the choice.

Few people only consider money when making decisions. Most people are sane enough to value relationships and such - apart from economists.

People in Australia are downshifting.

Much that people want can be delivered sustainably.

Bazz, do you have any information on the other side of the equation?

>>The Australian Government is auctioning bonds at the rate of
$2 to $2.5 billion a week.<<

Your statistic tells us nothing about the net increase in borrowings.

The latest information I could find from AOFM was for April, when $8bn were issued, and $7bn redeemed

http://www.aofm.gov.au/content/borrowing/commonwealth/Monthly_Changes_CGS/2011/04_april.asp

This matches your "$2bn a week" number in terms of new issues. But you do not mention redemptions. Did it just slip your mind?

No it did not slip my mind, I just did not know about it.

"Why would we want to save it as it is? Like saving an infestation of carp."

Squeers, if you want to abandon the world and retire to a block of land in darkest Tasmania, I have nothing but encouraging words for you. But I happen to like my world the way it is, and I would rather see it kept that way than flushed down the toilet to appease the self-loathing of a small group of environmental cultists. Nobody is stopping you from making your own world any way you like; but please leave ours alone.

By the way, how long do you think you will be able to hold on to that block of land when law and order have broken down, and hungry people with shotguns are looking for food and shelter?

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, environmental activists proposed the hypothesis that human-caused CO2 emissions were causing global warming. The UN, after conning numerous governments that the politically correct thing to do was to accept the hypothesis, set up the IPCC in 1988 to gather evidence to prove the hypothesis. Despite the IPCC and others failing to come up with the necessary substantiating scientific evidence, it is still politically correct to believe in AGW. So much so, that some governments such as Australia's, are acting dysfunctionally by proposing to damage the economy by implementing a carbon tax or ETS to reduce CO2 emissions so as to control the climate -- which is utterly fanciful thinking.

What a sensible article, it's good to see people thinking beyond the combative AGW catastrofarian way versus the world.

"But the message they are communicating is that it's OK to use as much energy as you like, as long as you pay for it"

Once I pay a tax for CO2, I've done my bit .. or, rather, its been done for me, why do I need to do more .. that's the environment looked after surely?

The tax is meant to modify behavior, but it won't as it is too small. Companies will pass it on, they are businesses and cannot be forced to lose money. The definition of being in business, is to make money.

The rest of us have a minimum comfort level we will pay to maintain, so unless energy is actually withdrawn, will not go beyond that.

Withdraw it and we'll vote in anyone who will reinstate it. Those who continue to bark for taxes, will soon change their tune when their constituency turns on them. (getup included)

The losers in this, who have not worked it out yet, are the green activist types who will see once the tax goes in, a demolition of donations for green "stuff", because we're paying a tax for it now .. why should we pay them as well?

It's like the Flood Levy, never again will Australians put their hands in their pockets in times of disaster, only to find the government then decides to give away our money as well, in future, we'll wait and see.

Like this government, the alarmists and eco wackos have not thought this all the way through.

Why should anyone now care about clean up Australia day, or recycling, or any other "eco" activities .. we're paying a tax for this, the government will do it.

You are ending the role an individual can play by taking it over, and having a monstrous government department run it, who will over bureaucratize environmental activities .. so be it, it's what the people "wanted", another ALP government stuff up.