Deja vu, all over again, everyone?

At least other authors on this weather-worn subject were not so obviously endeavouring "to teach their grandmothers how to suck eggs". I wish not to be hurtful, but why is it some young (or younger) people (and almost invariably Arts students) seem to think they have all the answers, and that older heads are just "recalcitrant", or some other such explanation for them not being immediately convinced by an endless repetition of slanted logic and misrepresented data. We are all supposed to understand our limitations, and to have respect for the possibility that others may have an equally or more accurate and credible point of view. It is somewhat disrespectful I feel, when some think all they have to do is repeat a piece of rubbish often enough for people to believe it. Phooey.

Good on Sophie anyway, for having a go for what she believes in.

Unfortunately Sophie neglects to mention the 68% who rejected the idea of a carbon tax in a survey conducted almost immediately after the cast of 45,000 (approx) did their duty by the environment - misguided as the chosen "vehicle" may have been. Sophie has also obviously either not read any of the negative responses to a C tax already posted endlessly elsewhere on this forum, or has chosen to ignore them. Should we be thankful for yet another opportunity to put our case against? Maybe/not.

Once again we have the AGW deniers (of course), in spite of everything, and we are just going to have to leave that aside - no good flogging a dead and decayed horse, is there. In any event, the question at hand is "carbon tax or what"?

CO2 emissions are real, by the credible science (which excludes a mass of neo-scepto-quasi-scientifico-commentorati in sheep's clothing), and levels dictate that current and future emissions have to be reduced - or ecosystems are going to be thrown into imbalance, with direct consequences for global food production!

Other options = zero.
TBC>

( Carbon Tax - or Not? - Continued:)

Garnaut's arguments have an Achilles Heel. No-one is going to reduce consumption if they are subsidised; no industry is going to invest in alternatives if they can simply pass on the full cost of doing business under a C tax; a C tax will increase CPI and put upward pressure on wages; a C tax will make some businesses less viable; Will reduce investment in mining; Will increase prices generally; Will cost jobs - at least in near term; Will make Oz less competitive; Will NOT reduces CO2!; Will Not bolster investment in alternatives!

Pig in a "red" poke!

Give us some credit, give us some better "facts", or for heaven's sake give us a new government.

"35 European countries have had a price on carbon since 2005..."

You really don't want to hold up Europe (and especially Germany and the UK) as brilliant examples of green-led prosperity, do you? Or are you thinking of Portugal, Ireland, Spain and Greece?

Trust me on this: European exemplars are not a good idea right now. Oh, and stay well clear of California too.

"Rich if you don't know what "hide the decline" is you definitely aren't qualified to speak on climate change. Google it, & climate gate, & learn how you have been conned. Posted by Hasbeen"

Hasbeen - your condescending tone doesn't reflect well on you. I had a feeling that you might be referring to "climategate" but thought I would give you the chance to add some detail to your concern. In fact I have previously on this forum posted about the various independent reviews into "Climategate" and their conclusions which are that the science is unchanged by Climategate.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/fake-scandal-Climategate.html has the full story.

The fact that not one scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change would be conclusive for any non scientist able to put to one side their own prejudices and ideology.

Yes Rich, & I believe in the tooth fairy.

Rich2 your response that:

"There is underlying justice in that every citizen should be allowed the same level of CO2 emissions"

proves my point that the idea of taxing 'carbon emissions' is a misguided exercise in social equity and not a serious attempt at decreasing CO2 levels. If it were really about CO2 or climate, then allowing hundreds of millions of people in the developing world a chance to "pollute equally" with western counterparts is simply ludicrous. After all their CO2 affects climate as much as ours!

So are your climate scientists OK with Africas millions being given a chance to put their C02 up into the atmosphere?