Lets call a spade a spade - it is a TAX so the politicians can waste more money, without having to increase current tax rates.
As many scientists say it is global warming as say it is not global warming caused by humans.
Politicians love it more money for them to prance around and give away (remember Rudd a few months back look at me I am important oh by the way here is a few million dollars from the Australian taxpayers )
It will also make a very few people like Al Gore billions of dollars.

@Poirot: 'What's wrong with moderation?'

Nothing: as long as you let people decide for themselves what 'moderation' means. For instance, in my view a 'moderate' response to the alleged AGW 'crisis' would be to commission a bit more research and do some objective analysis of the more hysterical claims, not to slap a whopping great tax on our most productive industries. Is that what you mean by 'moderation'?

Mark Lawson here

individual - Jon J was quite correct. Growth has produced considerably more happyness than the hair-shirt approach of the greens, and the really ignorant (you started using that word, so live with it) are those who try to invoke philosophy as a defence against facts. The pursuit of growth is not going to end in disaster, no matter how many times it may be prophecised.

Poirot - go back and look at your post. So the Indian people cannot lift themselves out of grinding poverty because a few of them (the epidemic) will get diabetes? The number of diseases prevented by people having enough to eat will far outweigh the diseases caused by affluence

Mark,

My initial points were on sustainability and moderation.

Do you honestly believe that it's possible for the billions in China, India and Africa to inhabit the same wasteful paradise as the richest billion have enjoyed in modern times?
...and the wheel nuts are already beginning to loosen on that bandwagon.

If "growth" is not sustainable, then it ain't going to last.

China
http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/amazing-pictures-pollution-in-china/

India
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/india_water.html

Forecasting for disaster is very reliant on past events! Around 90 million years ago, the palaeoecological/geological record tells us, that all life was very nearly wiped from the planet. The same record tells us this was proceeded by unusually active volcanic events, which pushed the global Co2 levels slightly beyond what they are now.
This then resulted in a 2C rise in ambient temperatures, which in turn caused the frozen methane to melt, forcing temperatures to rise a further 3C, a total increase of just 5C?
That said, it is not carbon that creates global warming; but rather, the greenhouse effect. Co2 acts on plant life as a super fertilizer, which then react, with vastly increased water vapour, and increased thermal blankets, which trap radiant heat, which is largely absorbed by our oceans, which then react by creating even more atmospheric moisture and trapping even more radiant heat. Exacerbating everything forecast, including increasing ice melts, which in times past, reflected radiant heat!
But, as water now absorb even more of it, creating an exponentially increasing problem.
We for our part contribute by preferring fully imported fuels, which produce four times more carbon than we would create, by just using locally available and copious NG, and our own virtually ready to use, sweet light crude.
We currently access around 80% of our oil needs from overseas suppliers. Supply that could be almost completely cut off, by full blown Middle East conflict.
Engage in the debate, but at least get practical and start on the road to total energy independence, particularly where that results in carbon reductions of around 35%, as the very first consequence of long overdue pragmatism!
Our sand pit politicians are so focused on the local political conflict, they are simply unable or unwilling to lift their heads high enough, to see the predictable future that faces all of us! Or what practical measures, we can employ to protect ourselves, from its worse consequences?
Rhrosty.

Poirot

"Do you honestly believe that it's possible for the billions in China, India and Africa to inhabit the same wasteful paradise as the richest billion have enjoyed in modern times?"

Look, sorry, but where have you been for the past few decades? The answer to your question is obviously yes, and there will be no problem. People like you were making exactly the same statements back in the 1960s (when the Hippie movement got into gear), and were equally concerned. Yet it has been shown time and time again that every limit set by those who believe that there will be a limit to growth is breached.

For that matter they were asking the same questions, in differnt form, around the time of the industrial revolution. If you think you are different from all the others who have been claiming there must be limits, then give solid reasons.