As the Industrial Revolution held the key to possible eventual global destruction, it is a pity that the great thinker Adam Smith also of the time, did not use his philosophies to give warnings in a changing world concerning the critical differences between Human Need and the potential destructiveness of Human Greed.

Cheers, BB, WA.

So here it is, laid out for all to see. The Socialist Left's vision of our future. The ETS is or should be a vehicle for "distributive justice". That's the move where creepy bureaucrats take your money and give it to some one more deserving.

Like Robert Mugabe. Or Tristan Ewins, since he doesn't seem to have any skills for earning an income of his own. "Freelance" implies "can't get a job as a real journalist".

Note the "authorities" he quotes: The Age, the Sydney Morning Herald, somebody who did a pass degree in "Social Science Environment", whatever that is, and Friends of the Earth. Well balanced, no?

And how's this for denial? "Given the virtually universal consensus across the entire body of global scientific opinion, with regards to the reality of human-induced climate change, resistance to action must be seen as being harder and harder to justify."

You haven't been keeping up, have you Tristan? The world has moved on from that self-serving little scam. Hear of CRU? GISS? Climategate fraud?

Some will recall that the Victorian Socialist Left kept Labor in opposition for an entire generation. This steaming pile shows us why. Keep up the good work, guys.

KenH

Now I am not one who is not guilty in making some attacks on the simplistic left, but some of your comments are ludicrous and damn right disrespectful to Tristan who is indeed an intelligent and passionate scholar, albeit that I do not always agree with his tone of argument.

I will say this of your comments. First, majority scientific and public opinion does agree that global warming and/or related problems (including methane emissions) are due to human activity.

Second, bagging Tristan's credentials, his related employment earnings from his writing, or social science, has no relevance to the debate or points raised by Tristan.

As for taking redistributing resources, there is nothing wrong with Tristan arguing such a point, as many a person would not be opposed to such a reality as long as economic wealth creation is maintained. As always, key trick is to balance competitiveness and compassion, as any half-decent Liberal voter would also agree to

Chris Lewis,

You know that one about heat and kitchens?

Tristan's choice of sources was grossly one-sided. That in itself destroys the credibility of the argument he put. And yes, it is entirely fair to question the record and qualifications of sources quoted as authorities. He introduced those issues, after all.

The circles in which you and he move might well find the idea of "distributive justice" appealing. But that proposition will be compared to the results your political predecessors achieved with the same concept - Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Mugabe and the rest of the murderous gang - they gave their people such wonderful results, didn't they? And you're surprised that the "distributive justice" he/you are promoting is challenged?

Finally, repeating his claim that the majority of scientists are global warmers does not make it so. Even if it were so, that does not prove that they are correct, since science isn't a popularity contest. Remember Galileo?

Ken: Even John Howard - when in government - extolled the principle of a progressive income tax system. Does this make the man the equivalent of 'Pol Pot': or in that same tradition?

I know well enough - that although I am a liberal, a socialist and a democrat, for instance - that it just wouldn't be right to equate Edmund Burke with Adolf Hitler just because they're both 'on the Right'.

Politics is much more complex than that. By the same token when evaluating politics on 'the Left', it's best to appreciate the finer nuances. The fact I consider myself a liberal as well as a socialist suggests very strongly that I'm not in the same mold as, say, Joseph Stalin.

But the conclude: I don't consider myself a scientific authority - but given the relative freedom in scientific enquiry we enjoy in 'the West' - I cannot help but take note of what seems like a virtual consensus on the issue of climate change.

KenH,

If Tristan was a totalitarian, I would indeed give him as much stick as possible. As I understand, he does call himself a socialist, but in the tradition of supporting a level of govt intervention and redistribution such as evident in Sweden, Norway and Denmark. You would find that the vast majority of people in such countries are also ideologically opposed to totalitarian systems.

It is actually good that Tristan now refers to the strength of liberalism and liberal democracy to propose his ideas from a leftist perspective. As I have noted before, such ideas did carry more weight in the past, even under Menzies. You never know, the middle may indeed shift back a bit to the left in the future, but that will hardly make us totalitarians.