Spindoc,

Good question.

I, for one, have noted that Labor's stance of promoting a carbon tax merely passes on burden to others (China) while making our own industries less competitive. Not a good idea given democratic naitons are more likely to have better eco-env balance. China is improving (it needs to gven the filth of its cities), but it is light years away from Western standards and expecations.

But, given i have been asked the question, i currently support the Coalition's approach to also adopt measures that will lower our emmissions but not penalise Aust industry.

I know many will note that Coaliiton policy is not perfect or good enough, but i dont see how the carbon tax is working given the context of the day. Price is falling and global co2 levels continue to rise. The only real good idea to me is if humanity can address rising emissions at the global level, assuming that this is causing global warming or cooling or whatever side effects, given current change will have a huge financial cost.

The ultimate question is how a nation can achieve better outcomes, and i am sure Abbott will also be interested given he also supports the need to do something, as most Coalition supporters do (if my recall of polls is right).

Problem is we rely incresingly on dirty exports, so whether we can go that step further is difficult to know.

But if Aust could become a world leader in alternatives, as Rhrosty suggests, it will indeed become an achiever rather than just a mere player declaring it is simply too hard.

I know little about energy, but I believe that some recogntion of the problem and a need for debate about plausible ideas is indeed an aspect that all sensible political elites would consider. I think most Austs are wise enough to know that a carbon tax in Australia does not mean a win-win situation for the world.

I hope this post sounds reasonable, but for me it is one of those very hard questions facing humanity and Western socities.

spindoc and Chris Lewis,

You both appear to be overlooking Mr Abbott's plans to ramp up action on a global climate change deal.

http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/how-tony-abbott-killed-the-australian-climate-sceptic-movement-and-schooled-them-in-realpolitik/

What do you make of that?

Or do you think he's just spinning us a lie?

Poirot, but i have indicated the Coaliton wil do something to try and lower emissions; I dont rule out some scheme with support from the US and others, as Hunt suggests.

But national action is also better than nothing, while maintaining naitonal competitiveness.

Poirot, you try to establish some credibility in these debates and then you resort to someone like Readfearn.

Readfearn is a petty little weasel.

AGW is a dead science; renewables don't work and I would have to see more info about Rhosty's ceramic microbes before I pass judgement; there have been too many other scams and 1/2 baked ideas presented to save mankind from the only energies which so far work, the fossils and nuclear; eg see:

http://landshape.org/enm/niweek-2012-cold-fusion-lenr-ecat-anomalous-heat-effect-demonstrated/

Thought bubbles are fine when the power is on; when it's not, fine ideals disappear as fast as the memory of last night's dinner.

Chris Lewis I have a real problem with some of your reasoning.

You obviously understand that carbon dioxide has a very marginal effect, if any, on the ambient temperature. However you won't let go of the idea that CO2 emissions should be reduced.

Understanding it is not effecting temperature in any real sense, why do you continue with the desire to reduce it. It is simply illogical.

You mention China's pollution problem, which is probably no worse than that experienced, on a smaller scale, where people are still cooking on dung. Surely these real problems should be tackled long before the now understood non problem of a harmless plant food gas.

Yes the rat bag greenie wants power generation stopped for some totally irrational reason, but why do some, who have now recognized the fallacy of global warming, still want CO2 emissions diminished?

"Denial" - so that assumes you've already proved it right? And where? Oh, that's right, more links in substitution of argument, more groupthink, more assuming what you haven't proved? Ho-hum, situation normal, Poirot.

Still using depletable resources I see Poirot? Tut-tut, naughty. Destroying the planet. Halo has slipped. Why don't you settle the debate, as concerns yourself, and stop using the internet, electricity and petrol, and any food produced using them? At least show willing to do your bit.