"Climate change won't be solved with a negative, won't-do attitude. The reality is we cannot afford to put young people's future in the too hard basket."

I agree with the first five words of your title. The question is, how much it will cost us to find out you were right?

All the young people I know will find their future is much better served by keeping control over their own money, rather than handing it over to the Gillard government to pay for dream solutions to imaginary problems.

The first poster justs demonstrates how negative the opposition is by spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt - FUD.

Oh, to be young and idealistic, and not an old cynic like me! Heather Bruer's heart is in the right place and it is indeed important that we each try to leave the world a better place. I happen to think that she has got the economics wrong and is overstating the ripple effect we in Australia can have on the rest of the world in regard to climate change.

But the biggest problem with her thesis is that it does not give enough consideration to the full range of potential targets were it really possible to change the world with a kick-start from here. She picks climate change. For my money, the biggest scourges of the world are war and religion. Logically those ought to be the number one priorities for creating a better world by our example. But I'm not holding my breath.

I think Heather Bruer is dreaming. An Australian carbon tax will not change the world climate. To do that every nation across the world would be required to reduce carbon. This wont and can't happen, Europe is in deep financial difficulties and America has its own financial woes and could not even consider putting a carbon tax in place. China, India, Brazil are not looking to reduce carbon because they think that emerging economies should be allowed to run free.
The Government has only agreed to a carbon tax to keep the Greens happy and Julia Gillard in the lodge.
The Government should be looking at ways to reduce carbon scientifically. If the 500? polluters do not reduce their outflow of carbon then fine them $500,000 a time - they will soon get the picture.
Everyone wonts to save the world but in so doing we don't have to kill our economy and turn Australia into a 3rd world country.

This is a bit rich.

For a junior recruit of the mob who have been throwing a negative scare campaign at us for 25 years, to accuse those defending the innocent from the con, of being negative, really is a pot, kettle, black moment.

What is it about studding economics that fills the head with cotton wool? I realise it is one of those arty farty disciplines which leave lots of empty space in a students head. Space that tutors can pack full of BS, but why are they so easily fooled.

Even after months of denigration by the lefties on here, trying to diminish that of which they are frightened, the only thing that really worries me about Abbott, is his economics degree.

Heather
so let this old cynic get this straight. As well as pay the carbon tax you are proposing a voluntary scheme on top of it? Okay, but will this scheme simply shift CO2 emissions elsewhere (a real danger with all of this stuff), or will it result in savings? At what cost?

Perhaps you could bring your economics training to bear and come out with a cost-benefit trade off, particularly given that most of the theoretical climate change effects are expected to occur decades from now (if, indeed, they occur at all). What rediscount rate will you assume - bearing mind that Nicholas Stern had to make quite extreme assumptions to make the figures add up to emission reduction being economic?

You will find you will have to work very hard indeed to make the sums add up. You'd best get busy.