The Greens are again calling for the introduction of a carbon tax on industry.

The imposition of other taxes and levies in the past has shown that they have little effect, and are never removed; people become inured to them.

A carbon tax would be passed on to consumers, and the situation would continue as it is: assuming that climate change is real, and human activity is responsible for it, of course.

Even if carbon emission control were practical in Australia, China would replace any reduction in our emissions inside 12 months. It increases its emissions in line with our total emissions every 10 months.

A carbon tax would be just another costly, feel-good exercise in futility, and a stupid blow against our economy

It's a very valid point.

Once again we have the ALP and the Greens playing populist politics in relation to an issue that if mishandled, could have immense implications for the economic and environmental viability of our nation.

Why is it that Labor cry foul in relation to the supposed threat of Workchoices to Australian jobs, yet haphazardly commit to policy that will detrimentally affect the economy and promote offshore movements?

Peter,

You're right, of course we can use the excuse that "someone else will be worse than we are" as a justification for inaction. Great idea. Using your logic, Australia should become a heroin and cocaine exporting country, as there are countries that will be doing worse harm than we are.

If avoiding the chance of destroying our planet costs something, think of it as an insurance policy- you have one, right? Against the chance that an unlikely event destroys a major asset? So why should the world economy be any different?

Even a skeptic that thinks all the growing evidence for human-caused climate change is *probably* untrue should see the logic of paying some insurance money out of our economy now, so that our kids have a better chance of inheriting a working planet to live on. Planetary insurance.

Or are you going to cancel all of your personal insurance policies today?

That argument isn't really feasable in relation to global warming. You're essentially comparing ice to fire.

China's annual emission increases will surpass Australia's savings in emissions in one year, which negates any reasoning for adversely affecting Australian industry.

There needs to be a holistic approach internationally, with the major contributors such as China sanctioned. Australia, as the government pointed out, needs to focus on Kyoto mark II and attempt to alter the approach to the major emittors. It's either all in, or nothing at all, and rightly so.

This idea of 'insurance' is null and void, when any benefits obtained fro mthe 'insurance' are negated due to international inaction.

Indulis,

Who’s Peter? Your own “logic” is bizarre

yes indulus your on the right track but I think you are an extreme optimust if you expect people to pay for anything, especially if they can blame someone else.
BHP has just donated $100,000,000 to the governments coffers for whatever and both they and the government assure us that this will in no way influence the governments decision on the granting of developement applications for coal exploration especially around the Goulburn river. Rats Arse.
There should be NO carbon tax, this would be controlled by public servants being paid by carbon dioxide producers to turn a blind eye to their screwing up the planet.
It's about time we saw the "scientific" evidence of these polluters so we can compare it to "scientific" the evidence of the greenies. I think I can guess who I would want to believe