David. Clearly you passionately believe in the need to abate CO2 emissions. Are you at all aware, using your undoubted critical thinking faculties, of the weaknesses in the arguments claiming that CO2 is the main close of supposed global warming? Really, you should have a look.

More importantly though, I find it interesting in a post headlined "The Cost of Inaction On Carbon Emissions" that no cost information at all provided. What, David, actually is the cost if we take no action.

This government is big on ambitious projects paid for by the taxpayer, but without a skerrick of standard cost benefit analysis that you would apply if you were building a new chook-house.

We now know the costs of the policy (more or less, likely higher than claimed) but we know very little about the benefits. Is our carbon tax going to make any material difference to Australia? The planet?

I encourage you to set down the actual cost of inaction as you see it, and then we might have something that could persuade some of us.

I see alarmists have given up citing the wonderful example of European climate policy, which is probably wise, given its increasingly rapid slide into bankruptcy. Britain's current environmental agenda is all talk, but if they attempt to adopt them the same result will inevitably follow. And of course it's a common tactic for Greens to cite other countries' lunatic plans as if they were realities. There are probably Greens in Britain right now explaining what a wonderful reception Gillard's Carbon Tax has had. Sigh.

Just what IS it about 'we can't feed, clothe and house and educate seven billion people on sunlight, wind and good intentions' that the Greens don't understand?

Shut the gate to the bottom of the garden, the fairies are escaping.

Anyone who is not rolling on the ground laughing, at the suggestion that Scotland could convert to 100% renewables by 2020, & suggest this is good policy, must be off in fairyland.

David, you tell us that <<Offshore and onshore wind farms are already in place and contributing heavily to the mix of power generation in the U.K.>>

Yep! But what you didn’t tell us was;

“The Renewable Energy Foundation (REF) and The Sunday Telegraph asked Colin Gibson, former power network director at the National Grid, for an estimate that takes into account these production costs.
His figures suggest that across its whole life, onshore wind will cost as much as £178 per megawatt hour of electricity generated, three times nuclear (£60). Offshore wind, with its much higher construction cost, is more than four times dearer, at £254 per megawatt hour.”
“Mr Gibson stresses that, though most of his calculations are based on official data, some have to be based on his best judgment, and aren’t definitive. But the broad picture is clear. “If you take the costs of a mixture of on and offshore wind, it is very roughly £140 per megawatt hour higher than a mixture of nuclear and gas turbines,” he says.
“Multiply that by the number of megawatt hours we use, and you get a figure in the order of maybe £11 billion a year, which is about £550 per customer per annum [extra] for wind power. That is quite frightening.”

You also told us that <<The Scottish Government has committed to a target of 100 per cent renewable energy by 2020.>>

Yep! But what you didn’t tell us was;

“Also, wind farms in Scotland will not only be selling electricity to England, but England will also be trading its emissions to Scotland. So, England will be paying twice to Scotland.”

(Extracts from UK Sunday Herald, 17 July. Research by Andrew Gilligan)

You should do your research before we do on OLO, then you won’t look so unprofessional.

See; Analysis by Waters Wye Associates.

“The Cumulative Impact of Climate Change Policies on Energy Intensive Industries Update on UK Energy Intensive Industries Update Against New Government Policy”

http://www.waterswye.co.uk/EIUG%20Carbon%20Tax%20Update%20201103.pdf

Check out page 14 in particular, then tell us how good this will all be for us!

David, almost forgot.

The other thing you forgot to tell us was;

Stuart Young Consulting on behalf of the John Muir Trust entitled “Analysis of Wind Power Generation, November 2008 to March 2010” (Actual data from wind generators grid connections)

1. Average output from wind was 27.18% of metered capacity in 2009, 21.14% in 2010, and 24.08% between November 2008 and December 2010 inclusive.
2. There were 124 separate occasions from November 2008 till December 2010 when total generation from the wind farms metered by National Grid was less than 20MW. (Average capacity over the period was in excess of 1600MW).
3. The average frequency and duration of a low wind event of 20MW or less between November 2008 and December 2010 was once every 6.38 days for a period of 4.93 hours.
4. At each of the four highest peak demands of 2010 wind output was low being respectively 4.72%, 5.51%, 2.59% and 2.51% of capacity at peak demand.
Also, during the study period, wind generation was:
• Below 20% of capacity more than half the time.
• Below 10% of capacity over one third of the time.
• Below 2.5% capacity for the equivalent of one day in twelve.
• Below 1.25% capacity for the equivalent of just under one day a month.
The discovery that for one third of the time wind output was less than 10% of capacity, and often significantly less than 10%, was an unexpected result of the analysis.

Leaving aside the small matter of David Leigh completely failing to address his title topic, the cost of inaction on climate (it’s a huge subject on which environmentalists and economists have done a lot of work without yet agreeing), we have here lots of words but no numbers. And that’s the problem. All of the energy ideas cited ‘work’, but that is a far cry from their being able to replace our current energy sources. The kinds of good intentions displayed, for example by the Scots and the Welsh, have actually been around for 10 years or more. Have a look and see how they are going – if you can get reliable data. It won’t impress.

What’s worse, the core message of this and similar articles, that switching to renewables is cheap and easy and just a matter of correct party political ideology, turns out to be viciously counterproductive. It has always been clear to energy experts that giving up the bonanza of solar energy stored in fossil fuels would adversely affect future prosperity. Any honest government should have driven that message home for as long as it took the electorate to accept it. Then, and only then, it could have proceeded, with some prospect of success, to start implementing measures to move towards more expensive and/or less popular (like nuclear) energy sources.

Instead, we now have a sorely divided community driven apart even further by a stupid carrot and stick approach designed to get acceptance of populist measures that people don’t understand or don’t want, and probably won’t work. What a mess.

The only hope left is that the climate scientists have got it wrong. The chances are slim, but I suppose no worse than getting a rational policy to attack climate change without the costs exceeding the benefits

Mr Leigh, you write that, "Australia needs to get on with the job of bilaterally tackling climate change and leave the politics out of the discussions".

That is impossible to do because the issue of "climate change" is an entirely political one. The introduction of a so-called "carbon tax" is purely a political invention having a next to zero effect on Australia's carbon dioxide output.

You strongly suggest that lack of action to bring about this political action is due to Mr Tony Abbott, who you say has set about to "destroy the work of the MPCCC".

Well, you see Mr Leigh, that's what he's supposed to do. That's his job - to represent the will of the people who elected him and his party to carry out his declared intentions prior to the last election. It's democracy in action. Those who voted Liberal/coalition gave Mr Abbott the mandate to act in exactly that manner. That's how the system is supposed to work.

Unlike, the Labor position, who were elected to minority government, also on a platform, of "No carbon tax", and who were given a mandate by the people who voted for them to do just that - have NO carbon tax, but who are now not carrying out the will of the people that voted for them. That's why there are so many folks upset and annoyed with Gillard's switch, The Labor/coalition isn't observing democracy, isn't carrying out their mandate for "no carbon tax", in fact they're doing the exact opposite. Something for which they have no mandate for.

Is it any wonder that dislike for Gillard and Labor, and their not mandated carbon tax is so widespread, according to opinion polls?

Please stop accusing Mr Abbott for doing what he is morally obliged to do and stop the advance of a carbon tax. He has the will of the majority of Australian voters behind him and a mandate to do exactly that. It's democracy in action.

It is the Labor party who should bilaterally tackle climate change as mandated, without a carbon tax.

So called "Climate Change" is speculation at best-out right fraud at it's worst! The claims of "proof" are laughable, if it was as serious as some people claim, action would have been implemented without a "carbon tax" and people like Tim Flannery would not need to be paid $180000, he would SPRING into action with no thought of extra monetary gain to stop "dangerous" climate change. There are people who will gain monetarily in many ways by selling so called "clean" alternatives. Unfortunately there are zealots born in every generation and they just, must save everyone from themselves.

David Leigh writes;

< The U.K. is so far ahead on alternative energy because instead of arguing against the science and the price of action, business leaders considered the cost of doing nothing, not just to the environment but also to business. >

YES!

We really need to consider the cost to business, economic health, social coherence and quality of life, as well as the environment, if we take no action, or pifflingly little action as is now the case with the carbon tax.

Basing this carbon mitigation business on the climate change motive is SCREWEY!!

There is a much bigger and more immediate and more obvious and more publicly acceptable motive. The achievement of a sustainable society, instead of blundering forth with rapid continuous growth based on ever-increasing demand on finite resources, especially oil.

It is all going to come unstuck, big-time, in the very near future if we don’t develop renewable energy sources and get the bejeezus away from our oil addiction. This affects the business community as much as anyone else.

So even the traditional supporters of continuous growth and business-as-usual, along with those who denounce AGW, should be agreeing with this motive and hence supporting carbon tax strategy or whatever else might work.

If our political leaders could just tackle the issue along these lines, we’d be heading in the right direction.

The advantages for climate change would be pretty much incidental, but they would DEFINITELY be much more substantial than they will be with the current approach in Australia.

People please! The debate as to whether climate change exists or not is a non-event; 2500 scientists from 179 countries are not wrong. Read all the reports online or download them. http://www.ipcc.ch/

The cost of inaction is the loss of natural habitat, not just for other animals but also for humans. We need a climate that will sustain us and feed us. The other, more immediate costs are in employment and business.

The US report, Sizing the Clean Economy: http://www.innovationpolicy.org/61483867 is a US National and Regional Jobs Assessment. It explains that market challenges and national policy uncertainty are hindering the clean energy sector’s ability to keep pace with other nations. This is what happens when people continue to argue about what has been scientifically proven and what has been given the green light by economists. Jobs are lost in what appears to be possibly the biggest global economic change since the industrial revolution that created the changing climate we now live in.

It is predicted that 88,000 new green jobs will be created in the UK marine and wind energy sector alone by 2021 http://www.bwea.com/media/news/articles/pr20110707-1.html

I was asked what wind farms existed in the UK: There are currently 292 onshore wind farms in operation in the United Kingdom and 14 offshore. http://www.bwea.com/statistics/

The 14 offshore facilities combine the use of 487 turbines producing 1,524.8 megawatts. There are another 6 under construction and 5 more approved. That will add another 937 turbines to the mix of power in the UK. This link will show you where they are: http://www.bwea.com/ukwed/google.asp

Another factor, which should be pencilled in to the equation is the amount of running cost jobs that will be created by wind farms. The turbine blades suffer wear on the leading edge from salt and sand erosion. The tailing edges suffer from fatigue caused by insects and ice. Thousands of new jobs, building the composite blades and repairing those in operation, will become another reality. http://www.renewableenergyfocus.com/view/18954/meeting-the-challenge-of-wind-turbine-blade-repair/

It is also estimated that Europe could be spending an annual 2-Billion pounds (AUD3-billion) on composites to make blades by 2020: http://www.compositesworld.com/news/europe-could-spend-2-billion-annually-on-offshore-blades-by-202

I have read AR4 from the IPCC.

Have you read the IAC review into the policies and processes of the IPCC from here: http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/

A summary of its recommendations and important statements is here: http://tome22.info/IAC-Report-Overview.html

You will find that the highest academic body in the world (the IAC) finds the IPCC riddled with conflict of interest, political interference, bias, improper treatment of uncertainty and incompetent management. The IPCC is a joke.

People please!

David please! Stop doing research and finding the thousands of scientific papers that are contrary to the scientific consensus, stop learning about the real world empirical evidence that refutes my opinion, follow my ideological preferences, accept the links I provide showing that my opinion is right, stop accessing research that destroys the illusion that wind farms are cheap, beneficial and are not as “some people” say, eye wateringly inefficient and expensive, stop being contrary to my self serving and prejudicial opinion as you are not worthy of your own opinion.

Yep David, we get it. Agree with you or else!

Please David, please. Get one of your own, they are great. (a life of your own that is). Your half cocked, over egged, ill conceived, badly researched and ignorant ideological rant has “bombed”, as it should.

Must try harder, 3 out of 10. Get back to us when you have finished primary school.

Sorry GY but this sort of guest writer is not OLO caliber.

Dear spindoc,

Glad to see that you do have a sense of humour.
You should have that framed and placed where you
can see it daily.

You know spindoc, it is always refreshing to see how quickly the response comes back when I hit a raw nerve. They say the truth hurts. As for insulting my educational standards I say, do your research. All the facts published in my article and in my reply come from good sources. The EU and much of the world, is so far ahead of Australia we are in danger of becoming an international joke.

I agree with one comment, the 5% target is far too small to make any real impact but I also believe in the principle that if you put an obstacle in the way of business it will adjust to it. I also believe in the ingenuity of the Australian mind and know that this small obstacle will not impede progress in any way. The mining companies are not against carbon tax, the coal industry (the one I expected to be nervous) has accepted the tax as part of its daily business and is forecasting a massive growth despite it. Why are you so paranoid... Oh yes of course, you are paid to be by the Liberals. Oppose everything even it is something you proposed yourself, that's the nature of opposition right? Policies are for those in government right? That my friend is why you are in opposition.

For anyone interested in some answers the following website may
help:

http://www.crikey.com.au/.../reality-check-the-narrowness-of-the-carbon-price-debate/

<< That my friend is why you are in opposition>>

And this, my friend,is why you are government.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5pzSvSCUZo

And it’s also the reason why,you,will be in opposition, real soon.

David Leigh overlooks the major mitigator of greenhouse gasses in his limp defence of the political inept Multi party committee on a carbon tax.

That Mitigator is sustainable forestry. In its fourth assessment report the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated:

“In the long term, a sustainable forest management strategy aimed at maintaining or increasing forest carbon stocks,while producing an annual substained yield of timber,fibre or energy from the forest, will generate the largest sustained mitigation benefit .”
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007 – Chapter 9.

Yet David, with his hemp option (where do you grow it, either cleared agricultural land or cleared forested land) and the Multi party carbon tax committee ignore this major IPCC finding.

They even go further and remove the renewable energy credit for wood if its grown in a native forest and harvested as a residue of a higher value product such as a house or furniture or paper fibre.

For any who want to read a real paper on Carbon in Forests and their products written by a working scientist see http://www.fwpa.com.au/The-role-of-forest-management-in-greenhouse-gas-mitigation

The two key messages of this report are that when timber products are used instead of high-CO2 producing products (i.e. steel, concrete etc.) the ‘saved’ CO2 is permanently prevented from being released into the atmosphere; the second finding is that carbon stored in forests is not preserved in perpetuity and cannot be ‘locked up’.

Rather, forests are dynamic living systems that are able to sequester large amounts of atmospheric CO2 into biomass. Carbon can be stored either in forest landscapes or in harvested wood products. Carbon stored in wood products can slow the constant cycle of forest carbon being returned to the atmosphere, such as when trees naturally die and decay, or through bushfire.

I'm sorry David but this article is an absolute shocker and made worse by your attempt to defend it in the comments. I suggest you stick to saving the trees in Tassie.

In addition to the other comments made, I would like to point out:

• The UK carbon "commitments" have an exit clause – I cannot recall the exact details but they are null and void if the EU doesn't achieve similar cuts (or words to that effect)

• Yes, Australia is the largest exporter of coal on Earth but these exports amount to about 290 Mtpa compared to the global total mined of about 7,300 Mtpa (million tonnes per annum); about half of the total by China. This 4% hardly warrants the claim that "Australia responsible directly and indirectly for a much larger percentage of global emissions than any other country."

• Using 2009 figures, Australia exported about 260 Mt of coal of which about 125 Mt was metallurgical (coking) coal. The total of coking coal traded (ie. imported & exported) globally in 2009 was about 230 Mt, so Australian coking coal exports made up just over half of the global exports. But, the total coking coal produced in 2009 was 915 Mt, so the Aussie contribution is only 14% and not half as you have claimed. BTW, guess who mined and used the most coking coal in 2009? China at 560 Mt (61% of global total).

• As an aside, it should be noted that renewable power is not a substitute for metallurgical coal - metallurgical coal is used in steelmaking as a reducing agent (chemical reaction). But this process still produces CO2 as does burning steaming coal in a power plant.

Also, one of your dot points at the end suggest that fossil fuels will increase in price and make their use more expensive. But if the rest of the world is moving away from fossil fuels, basic economics suggests to me that coal-fired fuel will reduce in cost as global demand drops off. Hmm – maybe there is no economic cost to inaction?

Oh hello Cinders, I wondered when you would pop up. Tasmania does not have a sustainable forest industry. If it were a solid wood producing industry I agree it would store carbon; I don't think anyone will argue against that point. Unfortunately, the past 30 years has seen a massive move from timber production to fibre and in particular, paper pulp wood. Until recently, that fibre was made up from 96% of the total harvest from native forests, while only 4% was harvested for timber. Plantation trees for fibre is also not a real option because 10 - 25 years is hardly carbon sequestration, especially when forests that held 5-times the carbon of any other on earth were destroyed to create them.

Hemp is a multi use plant and grows quickly, as opposed to trees. Hemp seed is 24% protein and has the 8 essential amino acids required by humans to build body cells. Meat has the same but at much lower levels. Soya has only 7 of the amino and cannot be properly digested by humans.

Hemp seed oil is almost engine ready as a bio-diesel and bio-ethonal can be made, using pyrolysis from the plant stems. Hemp oil is also a good source of food. It contains omega 3, 6 and 9 oils.Hemp seed jewel in the crown because food manufacturing from hemp seed has created thousands of jobs in EU countries.

Hemp fibres are the strongest natural fibre known to man and will produce 4.1-times the paper that trees will. The herd fibres, when mixed with lime and a little water, will cause a chemical reaction, which petrifies the mix and turns it to stone. Buildings from Hempcrete are natural carbon sinks. They can be erected much quicker and cheaper than any other method, are good thermally and therefore energy efficient.

The is a food source that can remove our dependance on meat, a fibre source that will stop us trashing trees and building material that will help us combat carbon emissions and a good earner for farmers and downline jobs for Australians. http://issuu.com/ecobard

David, did you watch the Monckton/Denniss debate at the Press Club yesterday? That partly explains why so many of us are becoming more sceptical.

We saw a government representative give a very unconvincing account, failing to address any of the science, other than to endorse consensus. On the other hand Monckton gave a very impressive set of facts and discussion. Particularly interesting (and important) were the points he made about climate sensitivity.

Of course Denniss had no response. And the quality of the press questions was appalling.

The reality is that the Australian public are not stupid. But they do resent being taken as stupid. Monckton is right. It is time that the AGW advocates lifted their game.

David

Why did none of those '2500 scientists from 179 countries (who) are not wrong.' predict last summers extreme wet in the southern hemisphere, the coldest winter with the heaviest snows for over 100 years in the northern hemisp[here, the coldest autumn with the earliest snows in fifty years in the southern hemisphere this year, the non rise in average surface temperatures between 1998 and 2008?

Tell me why none of your 2500 scientists will dispute these facts and their reducing effects on average surface temperatures?

Tell me why none of your 2500 scientists will write and publish any peer reviewed literature attributing the cooling effects of these events to anything other than historically periodic naturally occuring geographical variations in ocean currents?

When you've answered these, you might be able to claim your scientists are not wrong but you'd definately and justifiably be laughed at.

Peter Mac, I’m glad we agree on some points at least. Yes, the chart on my article states exactly those figures you suggest. Nobody is saying we are responsible for all global emissions but the case is a lot stronger than the mere 1.6% of global emissions that the climate change sceptics hang their collective hats on. Remember, we are a nation of just 22-million people and yet our carbon footprint is higher than that number would suggest.

Yes, I will continue to save trees in Tassie because without them and other forests around the globe our emissions would overpower us.

The overwhelming response to my article has been one of scepticism and yet as research has shown, the world has moved on from the debate as to whether climate change exists and even that it is man-made. What the rest of the world is doing is setting strong emissions targets. Canada and the US have a 20% emissions cut by 2020 on 2006 levels, (could be better)
http://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=714D9AAE-1&news=EAF552A3-D287-4AC0-ACB8-A6FEA697ACD6

The EU has a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of at least 20% below 1990 levels and has already achieved more than half those levels and has pushed to increase the target to 30%. The EU does admit that part of that achievement was due to the economic downturn, which enforces the point that climate change is man-made. http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/package/index_en.htm
www.bbc.co.uk/news/10225937

Beijing said it would aim to reduce its "carbon intensity" by 40-45% by the year 2020, compared with 2005 levels.

Carbon intensity, China's preferred measurement, is the amount of carbon dioxide emitted for each unit of GDP. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8380106.stm

Even Russia has set higher targets than Australia. The Russians have raised their targets to 22 – 25% by 2020 on 1990 levels http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/1801129/medvedev-toughens-russias-2020-emissions-target

These are countries with strong business sectors that are getting on with the job instead of arguing. I rest my case.

And... For the last comment on why the 2500 scientists did not predict the higher snowfall in Australia and the colder winters in Europe, they are not psychics, they are scientists and base there arguments on their findings. What they did say is that the whole planet can expect more extreme weather events; that means hotter summers, colder winters, heavier rain events, more frequent winds and storms and at much higher intensities. Look around you. Last year Queensland had 60% of its landmass under water. At the same time Victoria had the worse fire season on record. Last winter, every train and bus in the London Transport fleet was inactive for nearly two weeks, due to freezing conditions. The lifts on the Eiffel Tower froze at the same time. This year 75% of Queensland was under water, the East Coast has been subjected to severe rain events for most of the year and they are still happening. The USA is suffering hot temperatures never experienced before, killing people due to heat stress. China has floods to half the country and drought in the rest.

The main reason for Europe's winter woes could be because of the cold, fresh water leaching into the Gulf Stream from the Greenland ice melt. I could go on but would be wasting my breath because the big end of town are only interested in short-term gain for their shareholders and feel that money will buy them immunity from climate change... Well they're wrong.

The only way Scotland will convert to 100 % renewable is to turn the Scottish economic and living standards back to the time prior to the French Revolution, which seems to be the objective of the leveling greens:

reduce everyone to equality in poverty.

I am inclined to suggest, before writing this essay, David Leigh went on a binge, smoking too much of the topic of his previous thread

I agree with hasbeen…. The fairies are running amok

As for the cost of inaction,. I would rather devote my efforts to things which produce a benefit than pee effort up against the wall in a pointless exercise of pretending human activity will change whatever course the planet is headed (so much of this CAGW rubbish is all too arrogant for words)

David Leigh “The debate as to whether climate change exists or not is a non-event; 2500 scientists from 179 countries are not wrong.”

The world is in a state constant climate flux, always has been since
the beginning of time.

Because some fraudulent shysters claim doom and gloom, proved with hockey stick graphs, is forthcoming does not make it so.

And “the running cost jobs” – they will disappear because of
1 newer, better technology develops more durable wind farm constructions

Or more likely

2 wind farms are abandoned because they are found to be permanently sub-economic and incapable of producing what is wanted when it is needed.

I recall TR Malthus, who happened to come from Scotland (maybe it has something to do with living in bad weather 12 months of the year and existing on Porridge and Haggis, enough to bring the pessimist out in anyone), predicted the end would happen over 150 years ago….

Yet he failed to consider the inventive genius of individuals.

That spark of inventive genius which burns bright in some but not at all in the sort of mindless sheep who sign up for the CAWG and other Green theories.

Fact: If you want solutions,

Look to libertarian capitalists to find them

and forget the doom-laden levelers of the green left

Hi David - firstly, my comment about saving trees was not sarcastic and I encourage you to continue. Because I am a so-called climate sceptic does not automatically make me a philistine; far from it. Although I do hold shares in Gunns ... (joke).

I did not see any charts in your article but after a closer look, I see two red crosses – my browser has obviously failed me and I apologise to all if I have duplicated data.

However, irrespective of the charts displayed, you wrote "Australia is the largest exporter of coal on Earth. More than half the world’s metallurgical(coking) coal is mined in and exported from Australia. That would make Australia responsible directly and indirectly for a much larger percentage of global emissions than any other country."

As per my prior post, the first statement is correct and the second and third are incorrect. Moreover, these statements mislead the reader into thinking that the coal mined in Australia makes a significant contribution to the global anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This is quite false - whether it's 1.6% or 4% (the latter implied simplistically by the Aussie share of global coal production), it is insignificant.

If you tell lies and make stuff up (even if it is inadvertent), you will have no credibility and people will not take you seriously. That is why most of the comments have been negative. If you want to serve your AGW cause better, please improve your research and report facts correctly.

Please also draw logical conclusions in your arguments. To say (in your last comment) that the reduction of CO2 emissions in Europe during the GFC is proof that climate change is man-made is ridiculous. All it proves is that less human industrial activity produced less CO2, which is hardly in dispute.

Anyway, good luck with all that. I must sign off now and do some paid work so I can afford to pay for the cost of "action" on carbon emissions.

Oh, one more thing.

You said that 90% of the electricity generated in Australia comes from fossil fuels - without checking the figures, that sound about right to me. Living in Tasmania, you would know that the bulk of the electricity in that state (over 70%) is sourced from hydro.

Isn't it a funny thing that the people that protested over hydro schemes 20-30 years ago now want power generated by means other than burning coal and hydrocarbons?

Loy Yang vs Gordon-Franklin? It's an interesting moral dilemma for those mature enough to appreciate the practicalities. I think we got it right.

Col Rouge, it is that same human inventiveness that carbon tax was designed to tap into. The human trait to overcome obstacles (especially in business) and do things better, cleaner and more efficiently. Every single comment against my article in this thread has based argument on the past and the current without any thought to the ingenuity of man.

Peter Mac I also have work to do and do not have time to wage pointless arguments against people who refuse to accept the science of climate change and its impacts on our economy. Despite the majority of scientists, governments and economists globally, acting on what is happening to our weather patterns, the majority of commenters in this column refuse to be convinced... And that's democracy at work. I wish you luck also with your beliefs.

David Leigh " The human trait to overcome obstacles (especially in business) and do things better, cleaner and more efficiently."

Fine, do it

but do not ask for me to subsidise it.

if something is a good idea it, will prevail without public subsidy.

In short, "let the market decide"

Do not pretend any government is capable of making viable, economic decisions simply because they are a government and supposedly "well-meaning" and "green leaning" and employ lots of "experts" who are sensitive to the demands of "activists".

I find the superior option is for those who believe in the benefits of an invention or opportunity to take the risk and develop the market for themselves. For instance, I do recall the UK company EMI risking their entire business future on developing whole body scanning (not sure which system off hand), back in the 1980s because they "believed in the potential of the investment".

(and actually that is something the Green philosophy likes to ignore... demanding to send the national economy back 300 years - do the greens therefore gnore modern benefits, like MRI scans and other inventions resulting from "capitalist innovation")

I digress.. the public monies spent on subsidies for failures is saved and left in the pockets of private individuals to spend on the beneficial innovations, increasing the reward of the successful inventors.

That is the best way to encourage the focus on successful benefits and to stop wasting resources on the useless "fluffy duck" non-investments plus the successful inventor also gets a more appropriate reward for their efforts and we save on the cost associated with pointless bureaucratic "experts" feeding from the public trough.

useless "fluffy duck" non-investments? Hmmm! If big business (the major polluters in Australia were allowed to only invest in what they considered worthwhile investments there would be no Australian jobs (many have already gone offshore) no new inventions (unless it is a new, cheaper way of mining coal, using less labour) and our climate would suffer even more. A carbon tax is there to force a change in direction... Surely even you can understand that?

David Leigh “If big business (the major polluters in Australia were allowed to only invest in what they considered worthwhile investments there would be no Australian jobs”

Doubtless you have a cynical view of the complex “why” people choose to invest.

No point in trying to explain it to you

“(many have already gone offshore)”

Dumb-arsed, non-competitive tax and regulatory imposts on Australian manufacturing - like a Carbon Tax and maternity leave– is what makes Australia less competitive and what pushes jobs off shore

“ no new inventions (unless it is a new, cheaper way of mining coal, using less labour)”

The last time I looked, every “invention” has only been adopted because
1 it generates new opportunities and new markets

- Fast Food outlets

- home computers and internet services

2 it reduces the cost of production over existing practices….

- the spinning jenny being an early target of the luddites

- coal power electricity generation

- Internal combustion engine versus steam

- Motor cars replacing horses and carts

- Fords mass produced “ model T “over its more expensive “coach built” competitors

- Boeing jets being superior to Concord (not so fast) but a lower cost per passenger mile than either Concord or

- Boeing jets versus Steam Ships (and at a significantly more expeditious speed)

I have no problem with “clean coal” or nuclear energy but Carbon Taxes is dumb and lets face it

Whilst USA, as icon of capitalism, had 3 mile island

Chernobyl, and the Aral Sea are the disasters of strong collectivist government, the sort the Greens want to regulate when and how much gas people (and cattle) are allowed to pass

“A carbon tax is there to force a change in direction... Surely even you can understand that?”

A carbon tax is a pointless intrusion into the liberty of private individuals

And it will be repealed immediately following the next general election

Because Gillard, the labor party and the independents are all dead-people-walking

And the Greens are marked for political obliteration

So stop trying to mess with what you clearly do not understand

Col Rouge... Smile, you're on candid camera.

David Leigh "Col Rouge... Smile, you're on candid camera."

Not really sure what you mean

but I can understand how the exceptionalities of my life would make an appropriate topic for study ....

should I get my agent to contact you?

Ah David,

no peer revied literature of your global warming scientists predicted record colder autumns, record colder winters, record snows nor record floods.

They did predict endless drought, warmer summers, winters, autumns and springs.

David your comments about the current weather events only go to show that weather patterns are returning to what they were 30 years ago.

That's climate change in action. Climate changes ... in cycles... always has, always will. It's not a continous warming as you lot would have us believe.

The movement of the ocean currents in both hemispheres is a recurring natural historical event. It is not exclusively caused by climate change (Warming or cooling) as you assert. Again nothing peer reviewed about your claim.

Oh and David please ... rising sea levels. Well the latest peer reviewed literature tells us that as CO2 levels have risen sea levels have actually risen at a slower rate than they had with lower CO2 levels.

Explain that?

The weather and newer peer reviewed science is making claims of perpetual global warming look very very silly.

Imajulianutter, your so-called peer reviewed reports seem to be in opposition to the thousands of scientists globally, who have researched and worked tirelessly to warn the world of impending disasters. Of course Australia is different to the rest of the world. Australians (at least in the Abbott camp) are smarter, more informed and better able to advise global governments that the action they are taking is wrong and unnecessary. I am sure the UK and EU governments generally will be pleased to know that the billions spent on reforming their economies could have been saved and instead invested in fossil fuel energy production. There are some however, yourself included, that will look very silly if events like say, the seriously fractured section of the West Antarctic Ice Shelf (WAIS) should finally fall into the sea. The 3-metre rise in mean sea level should just about wipe out most Australian cities and possibly thousands of cities globally. I am sure also that the people living on the thousands of tiny islands around the world will thank you for your wise words and be comforted in the fact that it has nothing to do with climate change and is just a natural cycle. I wonder if your children and grandchildren will be as comforted when they are faced with an overcrowded world that looks much different to the one you inhabit. Still, as long as there are profits for large mining and energy companies the rest of the world can go to hell… Right?

David Leigh “the seriously fractured section of the West Antarctic Ice Shelf (WAIS) should finally fall into the sea. The 3-metre rise in mean sea level should just about wipe out most Australian cities and possibly thousands of cities globally.”

When it happens we should do something – until it does, since it will not “spontaneously melt, we should wait, watch and do what I have done…. Live on a hill

Real estate prices going the way they are…. I figure my plot of dirt will be worth a lot more after “the melt” than before

- I always thought those trendy Melbourne Dockland Apartments were a waste of money

Really David, from your comments, I can only observe,

your desperation is turning to hysteria...

btw you still have not explained your "Candid Camera" comment....

of course.. maybe you meant "Big Brother" is watching...

Who cares... I have never been intimidated by leftards type threats

better dead than red (and I will just take a few with me)

Very wise Col, hills are good places to live. It is not the melting that is the problem. The rock beneath the ice is warming, causing the under side to become smooth and lose its grip. This has stressed the whole ice sheet to the point of fracture and approximately half the sheet is in danger of breaking away. I tend to trust the scientists on the spot with their appraisal of the situation, rather than politicians and the major polluters. It could go at any time and if we are lucky will happen in 10 years or so. The problem is nobody actually knows. I would not be buying a canal estate home or any waterfront dwelling and as I live around 190 metres above sea level feel relatively safe. It is food supply that could be a worry, with much of the coastal plains in WA, Queensland and other states under food crops. Also the seepage into slightly higher land areas of salt water will have a serious impact on what we grow there. If you combine that single glacier with the many others under stress globally and couple that with the Greenland ice melt it adds up to a much higher sea level rise. The problem again, nobody is talking about falling ice, only gradual sea-level rise. Any one of the many incidents of slipping glaciers could have devastating impacts on coastal regions around the world. Stay high and keep dry.