According to Treasury figures the ETS would cost $12 for every $1 of projected benefit. But the ETS would not change the climate so there would be no benefit http://jennifermarohasy.com/2013/08/why-the-ets-will-not-succeed-peter-lang/

Treasury estimates the cumulative net cost of the ETS to 2050 at $1,345 billion. It would almost certainly be much higher.

$1,345 billion amounts to over $100,000 per working person and about $200,000 per family of four.

Once we accept these figures, can we, with integrity, advocate to put such a huge cost and debt on future generations - all for no benefit?

>>In the speech itself he referred to many people who think climate change is potentially disastrous as having a "sanctimonious tone">>

I think that is a very big problem.

The climate change issue has been hijacked by a pretty nasty bunch of actual Stalinists, like Lee Rhiannon, and her acolytes.

The Green supporters are a motley crew of self-righteous, sanctimonious narcissists who's understanding of science is minimal.

None of this negates the facts. When we adjust temperatures to account for such factors as El Nino / La Nina cycles and the amount of heat buried in the deep ocean we see that the planet is heating up. The oceans are acidifying and the consequences are unknown.

We need to take the ideology, especially the Greens ideology, out of this and regard climate policy as an exercise global risk management

If Howard didn't really think climate change was important, could his willingness to jump on board the bandwagon in '07 indicate that he had lost his command of the narrative, and his replacement as PM was entirely justified?
Over the long haul, I question if there will be a triumph of hope over sense. But I also question if throwing money at the emerging climate changes will help. If the global climate is changing, the effects will be too big to deny forever, and we won't be buying our way out of the situation either.
Mines are being planned for Greenland. Oil wells for the Arctic. Seat belts, anyone

stevenlmeyer
"We need to take the ideology, especially the Greens ideology, out of this and regard climate policy as an exercise global risk management"

Bravo. Then in that case, we also need to take out the ideology that the government automatically and intrinsically knows best, and in assessing the risk, we have to assess the downside as well, which no green or warmist ever does.

This means we have to assess the risk that governmental action will make the situation worse, in its own terms. This effectively disposes of the entire argument.

Furthermore, that assessment must not be done by any government or government-funded body, nor must any of the data used be gathered by anyone with a vested interest in the operation, as this will create a conflict of interest in assessing the risk.

That effectively disposes of the entire argument twice over.

Let those who are worried about increasing temperatures buy themselves a hat - with their own money.

People fretting that adverse weather events are caused by man's sin need to take a good look at themselves in the mirror.

just waiting for the alarmist to cash in on the Philippines.

If there were not very significant economic advantages to be gained by decarbing the economy, one might be able to actually understand some of the opposition to the science.
The worst storm in living memory has just ripped through the Philippines! How any more of these events, and just how much worse do they have to become, before some people will finally listen to the consensus of most climate scientists, who say that man made climate change is real and we need to do something about it.
When it is far too late?
Use less energy?
Well no, that's not required!
Use more expensive energy?
No, that's not required either!
You see we have choices like cheaper than coal thorium, and the use of bio-digesters, that can turn our own waste into 24/7 on demand, and very local, much more reliable, vastly less costly energy.
We have the option of converting all our traffic into gas powered electric vehicles, through the medium of inboard ceramic fuel cells, which by the way, do not produce very much carbon as the exhaust product, just mostly water vapor.
Moreover, the energy coefficient of 72%, of the gas fired ceramic fuel cell, should make it the very cheapest source of electrical energy ever!
And we have around 700 years worth of gas, if only we don't sell all of it to an energy hungry world; that in turn, also drives up the local price!
But instead, use it to give our own local manufacturing a healthy edge against all international competition!
And think, this easily refueled in just minutes, gas/ceramic fuel cell combination, could be used in trams, trolley buses and trains, instead of inordinately expensive overhead wires!
Rhrosty.