He said the subsidies were wasteful, environmentally damaging and economically regressive because they benefited those who needed them the least.

Mr Gurría also said switching from coal to lower-emissions natural gas for energy was a good 30-to-40-year way-station on the move to zero net emissions from fossil fuels by the end of the century.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/big-fat-tax-best-way-to-reduce-greenhouse-gas-emissions-says-oecd-secretarygeneral-angel-gurria-20140603-39fa9.html#ixzz33jJ29M7y

zero net carbon-*emissions...by the end of the century.

TELL HIM HE CANT STOP VOLCANOS..WHATS NETT EMISSION?

[WILL THE LAW OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND FORCE US
TO BUY OUR LAST FEW BREATHS OF C02 EMMISION..in 3000?
how your kids will envey/us home composying[the biggest manmade cause of methane and co2..YOU GREENIES ARE WORSE THAT COW FARTS.

sure we will double the other green
house gas polutants[like methane leakage from frakking sites..]

anyhow folks ..HOW MUCH AM I BID
for the last lawfull carbon dioxide exhalation[oops sorry polution..carbon polution 'permit?

]WHAT EANS ZERO NET EMMISION[NIGHT EMMISION?]
SOME BANKERS/accountant/mathimatition/lawyers..new global tax sceme WET DREAM?

Leaving aside for the moment the sniping from the sidelines, a few fundamental items need to be addressed.

1. Reducing reliance on fossil fuels will be more expensive, at least in the short term and that expense will impact on the poor more than the rich. The further this is put off, the more impact there will be when the change has to happen.

2. Ludwig as always mentions population. Indeed population is an issue and the World as a whole needs to take action to address it. There is a lot of work being done through UN and its agencies, but the World population is still growing. Improving education and the economic choices for women has always been the best way of reducing population growth. Shutting borders to immigrants has not been effective. Reducing Australia’s population growth to nil will, on its own, have a negligible effect on climate change – there must be more.

3. The large energy corporations are investing in alternative energy sources. If they are not investing in your personal favourite this is likely to be less a result of some massive conspiracy and more the result of a failure to see a reliable path to market. How should that be addressed?

4. Whatever Australia does on their own is likely to have minimal impact on climate change. However, if rich countries like Australia are going to shirk leadership, why would poor countries bother to do anything? See also point 1.

5. There is serious money to be made out of innovation. Failure to take appropriate steps in investing will lead to Australia being even more at the mercy of others in the future.

All good - lets do it. All funding to be raised privately by Greens voters and catastrophic AGW fundamentalists.

We should sue the 'experts' and 'scientists' to pay the state back for stupid waste on green subsidies that had no benefit. Company directors are liable, professional consultatns are liable, why not the frauds and hypocrites of the subsidy-sucking alarmism industry?

Leo, you might like to explain why there were wildfires in Norway in January 2014, their winter. You might also like to explain how thermokarst failure had occurred in Alaska, if warmth was not the issue.
Shrubs are starting to grow in permafrost areas, and small shallow lakes form in the appropriate time in the permafrost. Happening because of warming, once again observable.
Professor Lesack assessed temperature increase over many decades in relation to the McKenzie River and found that Spring temperatures had risen by 3.2 degrees C and 5.3 degrees C in Winter.
The Polar regions are said to be the canary in the mine.

Leo, methane a few years ago was bubbling from small ponds, now there are several kilometer strips where methane is voiding in the appropriate season. Please tell us why we should not be concerned Leo. These matters have been observed, empirical evidence for climate change. No computer modelling, no theoretical papers, but observable.

On Q@A on Monday night Lawrence Krauss, a theoretical physicist reaffirmed anthropogenic climate change.

This is the rubbish with which our disgusting universities are filling innocent young minds.

God help the business community of the future, if such easily conned minds are to lead it.

Hey Hazza, what gives?

Don’t tell me you are still on this total climate-change-denialist trip!