Right, ant, when you have no science to offer, to support your baseless assertions, you try to change the subject.
Nationality is irrelevant, as is most of the material you raise. He is a fraud supporter if by “climate change” he means as defined by the scurrilous IPCC fraud-backing definition.

You cannot be as stupid as you pretend to be, ant.

Warmair,

>"Is it just me who thinks that is both crazy and unfair to expect the tax payer to subsidised large companies to clean up their act ...?"

Many people share your view. But I don't think they've thought it through. When you say "the polluters pay" with the ETS but the tax payers pay with the direct action plan, I disagree. Australian consumers and tax-payers pay in both cases. Either way is damaging the economy and we all pay.

However, there are big differences. First, the ETS cannot succeed. It would not deliver the claimed benefits. But it would do great damage to the economy. See my earlier comment on this thread where I laid out some of the costs per individual of Labor's scheme. The total cost of Labor's carbon restraint policies is $20 billion per year. The Direct Action plan is $2.55 bn over 4 years plus the $5 bn per year for renewables if they keep it (and I hope they wont). That's a huge difference.

Secondly, Direct Action policy is very flexible. It can be quickly and easily changed to fit with whatever the world decides to do going forward. We are not locked in. However, the ETS is very difficult to change. We are locked in to a very bad policy. The longer it goes the more difficult and costly it will be to get out of it. And it would be far worse if we became tied to the EU carbon market.

Thirdly, the Direct Action plan could encourage innovation far more than the carbon tax/ETS.

I don't want either ETS or direct action, but I'd much prefer to waste $2.55 bn over 4 years than $20 bn per year that Labor has committed us to ($13 bn on ETS, $5 bn on renewables and $4 bn on other direct action budget measures).

They believe climate change is real in Greenland as they are experiencing it, Leo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgnvbMwRaf8
Copy and paste

Peter Lang, your figures for carbon pricing are absurd, but you go on spouting them.

Wage earners and pensioners were compensated, and will remain so unnecessarily when carbon pricing is axed, we are told, so how will the treasury's pound of flesh be extracted?

Exporters were given carbon credits to remain internationally competitive and domestic businesses worked within their normal domestically competitive price-raising constraints, while ensuring the "carbon tax" was held full responsible for any of them failing. Rubbish, of course.

What was not compensated, and so did effect business, were the great power price rises to renovate and maintain the grid, which is soon to be sold for a pittance, starting in NSW.

How is consumer behaviour encouraged towards decarbonizing by Direct Action, and how will the tiny spend make any more than the slightest dent in the issue? I expect we'll hear soon enough about farmers being paid to plant trees, in a ground-breaking but useless environmental initiative.

Leo Lane, you're a whack-a-mole which keeps presenting against the most powerful hits. You've demonstrated no capacity to weigh or discuss evidence sensibly, so stop boringly demanding more.

Could you clarify what you mean by “more” Lucferase?

I asked for science which showed any measurable effect of human emissions on climate. No one has ever supplied this. I never asked for the irrelevant crap produced by ant, and I have certainly not asked for more of it, so it is unclear what you mean to convey by your comment.

Lucerface,

You clearly have not a clue what you are talking about. The Labor-Green carbon restraint policies reduce Australia's GDP growth rate. The total reduction in GDP to 2050 is $1,345 billion according toe Treasury estimates. That means people are worse off (i.e overall standard of living would be lower) by $1,345 billion divided by the average population over that time. You can also discount it using Garnaut's and Treasury's discount rates, as I did in my comment above - that tells you the amount you'd need to pay now as an up front payment to earn the discount (like paying your rates bill in advance). I realise this is probably over your head so I am trying to explain it very simply for you.

The important thing to realise is that the policies will deliver no benefits. They push energy intensive industries out of Australia taking their jobs, income and emissions to other countries. But they will make no difference what so ever.

If you've understood this so far and you want to expand your understanding, you could go to the original sources from this link (See Submision No.2, read it and read the references cited if you want to): http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/Clean_Energy_Legislation/Submissions