Ahh FFS.

That shoulda read:

< Oh yes there is Leo. >

why do pommie immigrants who come here for a new life, cling to their roots by calling the conservatives in Australia, "Tories"?

did they come for a new life, or the same old life with more benefits

why not go back to pommieland, they have truly stuffed their own economy ..?

tories/conservatives/neocons/Liberals/Republicans - same dog different leg action

PS. I'm 5th generation Oz and proud to say not a drop of pom:P

It is worth noting that a tax on CO2 emissions is intended to have six major outcomes:

• Reduce Australian and global CO2 emissions
• Promote more efficient use of energy
• Develop clean energy technology
• Increase investment in clean energy
• Increase Australian energy self-sufficiency
• Encourage other countries to do likewise

There is good reason to believe that all of these outcomes will be achieved to varying degrees as soon as legislation is passed by Parliament. Emissions will be reduced by the efforts of major polluters seeking to reduce their emissions so as to reduce their carbon tax burden. They will also be reduced by end-users of electricity who seek to reduce their consumption – and therefore the amount which need be generated – in order to reduce their electricity bills.

Part of the carbon tax will be applied to assisting development and application of clean energy technology. The result will be relatively rapid increase in the production of electricity from non-polluting sources. This will also contribute to lowering CO2 emissions and create expertise in clean energy production and ways of using energy more efficiently. That expertise will become a valuable new industry whi9ch can be exported.

As electricity generation transits to clean sources, its price will fall and its use will become more widespread, replacing oil-based fuels to provide motive power for both fixed and mobile plant . This transition will be speeded-up by as the cost of oil-based fuels increase relative to electricity, until the latter becomes more affordable. As this occurs, dependence on oil import will be reduced and this too will further reduce CO2 emissions.

As these development occur, other countries, particularly those which now import fossil fuels to produce their energy needs, will adopt the technology and expertise developed in Australia and elsewhere. Such is the opportunity for a clean energy future which has been initiated by government and which the Opposition lead by Mr Abbott seeks to thwart – just as it seeks to thwart the development of an affordable super-fast internet becoming available nationwide.

TrashcanMan. You are still fooled by the claim that most scientists believe that human emissions contribute significantly to climate.

There are no scientists who assert that there is any scientific proof that human emissions affect climate in any but a negligible way. There are scientists who support the IPCC’s assertion that it is “very likely”. There were originally seven independent scientists who supported it, but two later withdrew their support. There were 55 conflicted scientists, people like the Climategate miscreants, who supported it. Presumably they still do.

There were 30,000 scientists who signed a petition to Congress to take no action on climate change until there was proof that human emissions had any measurable effect.

You are repeating an untrue slogan of the alarmists, and you have no science to back your statement.

If the majority of people, for good reason, oppose the tax, then the representatives of the people, in Parliament, should carry out their will.

Or do you think that it is OK for a lying socialist to impose her will against the wishes of the people, who were promised by her, “no carbon tax”?

It is not a tax on carbon, it is a tax on carbon dioxide. There is no scientific justification for it. If you have any science which shows human emissions to have any measurable effect on climate, produce it. No one else can, so you either have it or are making baseless statements.

The IPCC would love to know of it, as they would be relieved of their pathetic “very likely” assertion, and have some science to justify their existence, which at the moment is unjustifiable, except in the success of swindling money on false pretences for the UN.

Watch what you call stupid, TCM, you seem to lack the intellectual status and depth of knowledge to make such a judgement.

Ludwig, it is very interesting that you think a tax should be imposed for some other purpose than the false one of climate change, but why would it be called a “carbon tax”.

There is no justification for this tax.

<< Ludwig, it is very interesting that you think a tax should be imposed for some other purpose than the false one of climate change, but why would it be called a “carbon tax”. >>

Leo, I’m not worried about what we might call it, but in order to plan for peak oil and a sustainable society, it would essentially be the same sort of thing that we are now getting for the climate change motive. It would have to be geared towards considerably reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and redirecting it onto renewable energy sources.

I’m pleased that you find this very interesting. So then, is it not worth discussing further, rather than just dismissing it?

What about planning for peak oil?

What about planning for a sustainable society?

Don’t you think these are worthy objectives, rather than to just continue blundering forth with our rapidly expanding fossil-fuel-powered society until we reach a critical crunch point and are forced into radical change, with probable enormous social upheaval resulting?

There enormous justification for a carbon tax / incentive to reduce emissions / mechanism for the development of renewable energy sources, or however we may express it.