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

Too late, she cried and waved her wooden leg...
The writing was on the wall back in the 1970's, but no one took any notice. At the conference in Rio the world's most eminent scientists posted an ultimatum. That was ignored. Kyoto was a last ditch attampt... ignored, of course. Time has run out, gentlemen. The sole purpose of this latest flurry of pseudo activity, is to stop world panic. That will arrive in a few years as large tides sweep away the eastern seaboards of the USA and Australia, and sink about half the world's populations. But by then the rich will have secured their fortresses out of harm's way and it wil be safe to let the rest of us starve, drown, murder each other and die like rats in a sinking ship... which is an apt analogy. Humans have been likened many times over the last fity years to a plague of rodents, and human DNA is virtually indistinguishable from rats...
Rave on, or fiddle while the biosphere re-arranges itself, it makes not a jot of difference.

Some of the posts above seem optimistic that carbon taxes will not come, and will not work. But don’t be so sure! The Stern report comes with an economic view, not a”greenie” view. Investors are already becoming concerned about carbon emissions. The Council of Australian Governments’ draft regulation impact statement recommends laws that would force Australian companies to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions. Today’s Business section of The Afge quotes Shane Oliver AMP Capital Investor’ chief saying:
“As climate change becomes more and more of a reality, investors will come to expect that some form of restriction on carbon emissions is only a matter of time”
Good old capitalist economics will direct Australia into a post-Bush, post-Howard, 21st Century participation in global carbon trading, and into the international legal framework led by the Kyoto Protocol.
Christina Macpherson www.antinuclearaustralia.com

Huh, tides wiping out 1/2 the worlds population? Well that will at least make the anti-growth, anti-immigrationists happy. They may well increase their emissions to try to hurry it up!

There are arguements above that say that why should we bother with trying to reduce our emissions, when China is just going to plow ahead anyway? Well, if we didnt reduce our emissions, there would be that much more being pumped into the atmosphere. While I am not a doom and gloom greenie (heck I'm from a farming background - we lynch greenies), there is no harm in being cautious. I am not convinced that carbon taxes are the way to go. Regulation based on restrictions and penalties for breaching these would have to be more effective in controlling big business. Corporations are in the position to pass on the costs to consumers. Think about carbon-producers that are not in that position. Yep, farmers take the brunt again. Fuel is needed for production and cattle and sheep are shocking methane producers. Yet farmers are fairly unique in being unable to pass on the effects of any cost increases that they face. But if regulatory restrictions were put on farmers as well as other businesses, then there would be more of a level playing field.

Thanks ybgirp at least theres one more out there, I was starting to think my mind was in the wrong place ie. down round my bum, but it seems there are others who worry about the same thing so maybe it is up there in the grey matter after all.
30 years ago i moved to a place 1200M above sea level (and I'm still not rich) west of Sydney for this very reason and your right the place is filling up with the vacant rich trying to get out of the "rat race" and move to a more civilized area.
luckily no politicians as yet.
Have been trying for years to get the politicians interested in the wastage of water by Delta Electricity (40Ml/day from sydneys drinking water) that goes up the cooling tower, let alone the CO2, but they are not interested it's been a bit painful sitting here listening to their lies but now they are going to be reminded constantly of their denial of the facts and all the information they have been ignoring over the years.

A little known fact is that Australia with Saudi arabia are the biggest
exporters of carbon fuel in the whole world ,
Australia is so dominant in the coal market , it could probably create
a world wide recession by blocking coal exports ,
the decrease of CO2 emmission by Australia is small stuff , putting an
export quota plus a carbon taxe on coal exports would directly decrease
the world CO2 .

Of course trade will be affected, whether global warming is a natural phenomena or man made, matters little surely.
If a natural phenomena what the expected cost to industry? same as if a man made one I should think.
We have to believe the science, we have no trouble in other matters even if god botheres' want the truth to be otherwise.
I want to see Australia the world for that matter,get rid of coal its physical pollution is horrendous, whether co2, dust or an eyesore.
Lets again lead the world in the science of renewable energy, we have little to lose, replacing one industry for another, its happened before and will happen again and again, I hope. Its called progress.
As for Australia being disadvantaged against China one more disadvantage is neither here nor there. Oneday they must follow,
Tax the polluters I say, I pay to go to the tip, why should the coal industry not pay to dump waste, as all industry should.
Our democracy once led the world and the disadvantage of freedom took no account of disadvantage in trade. JH is taking us to the state of lowest common denominator, democratic and moral.
Let us again be leaders not followers.
fluff

If we excuse carbon dioxide polluters on the grounds that they will add any extra anti-pollution costs to the end price of their products and then we'll all pay, then we may as well not have any anti-pollution measures at all.

A while ago, I lived in a part of urban Western Australia which was in the process of changing from a mix of mainly cheap residential and assorted commercial and industrial to mid-range/expensive residential, with compatible commercial uses. Near the beach, near the Swan River, what would anyone with even half a brain expect?

When I moved there, the polluting excesses of some of the industries were obvious, so I got a copy of the WA EPA Act and some more useful official literature. I found that, not only were many businesses operating outside the guidelines, some of them were operating from inappropriate premises and/or without the knowledge and approval of the local council.

I wasn't out to change my part of the world, I really didn't care who was doing what, if it didn't unreasonably affect anyone else. But, living in my 1901 house, built before any of the local industry, I felt that I should not have to put up with excess noise, particularly through the night. But instead of getting support from the council health dept and the EPA, I found that they were far more inclined to cover for industry, even when the industrial activities were illegal and demonstrably environmentally harmful.

cont

I became president of our community association and had the ear of the local media. A local developer tried to buy my goodwill. If he'd try to buy me, a person with no real influence, then what would he do for councillors, council officers, EPA officers, well placed bureaucrats, MPs and other persons who could be useful to him? In an unrelated situation, a succession of developers, lobbyists, regulators, councillors and past and present state MPs are currently being investigated by the WA Crime and Corruption Commission in regard to a proposed development at Smiths Beach. It's all on Google!

The present unwillingness to pull CO2 polluters into line is just an extension of the long standing practice of letting environmental polluters get away with it, with perhaps monetary and/or political gain for those who are prepared to turn a blind eye.

“Huh, tides wiping out 1/2 the worlds population? Well that will at least make the anti-growth, anti-immigrationists happy. They may well increase their emissions to try to hurry it up!”

oh please Country Gal, this is terrible!

I am fairly and squarely one those that you would brand anti-growth and anti-immigration. But I am in this camp with the express purpose of stabilising the size of our impact on this planet (and on this continent) so that we may have a chance of addressing climate change and a few other almighty issues!

How on earth are we ever going to be able to do it if the same population growth and continuous economic growth regimes remain entrenched?

I saw ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ last might. Powerful. Stunning. And absolutely bloody awful in its message.

But while Al Gore talked about the impact of population size, he completely neglected to say that it was one of the factors that we have to address. This was the big flaw in the movie.

And indeed it is the big flaw in just about everyone else’s argument.

Oh Ludwig, please grow a sense of humour! I went fishing for a bite and I certainly got it.

If we are indeed such a world force in coal, then perhaps we could levy additional taxes on coal export/production. Given the minerals boom I am sure that the industry could soak up some additional costs. Whilst it may not have a large effect on the lowering of worldwide emissions, the money collected from the levy/tax could be directed straight to environmental works.

However, I think by far the most effective method of controlling and/or reducing carbon emissions is for regulation to play a role. yes there will also be those that break the rules, and there are plenty of people out there that will cry "big brother", but imposing additional costs will only help so much, particularly in an industry such as coal, which is sky-rocketing. Costs and market forces cannot hope to contain this situation.

Well, I’m pleased that you agree with my sentiments then CG (presumably you do?!).

But you’ve got to admit; you made a statement as though you heartily believed it. There was no humour in it. It was by all impressions just a straightforward dig.

“please grow a sense of humour!” is not very nice. Please give us some indication that humour is intended with things like this (tides wiping out half the world’s population was somehow humorous, or supposed to engender a humorous response?!)

Anyway, I agree that we should be doing some hard bargaining to raise the imbursement from our coal exports. This in conjunction with measures to stabilise our population would hopefully raise the average standard of living, and help get us off this terrible continuous economic growth spiral and steer us towards sustainability.

So to this end, yes, exporting coal can actually help us reach sustainability, which is at least as important as dealing with climate change.

What we should worry about is what is australia doing not anyone else.
if we keep our end up and create better technologies other than just talk as someone has said this has been going on since the 70s.

Its time for action not talk and its up to you all.
remember econics are an important issue as well so instead of saying no find the balance.

Australian peoples Party

email:swulrich@bigpond.net.au

Its up to you

You can take a horse to water but you cannot make him drink

Tapp, at the moment you would have a hard time finding water to lead your horse to!

Ludwig, I am afraid that I have been critisised before as being too direct. I must remember to ;) in the future. In truth I figured the comment outlandish enough for most to dismiss it. But many a true word said in jest. Our current world population is too high for conventional food production to support. Natural disasters are one way that mother nature seeks to restore the balance. This includes earthquakes, floods, famine, volcanos and tsunamis. Yes these wreak terrible devasation, and I donate to support appeals when these disasters strike. But the truth is that nature is a harsh beast, and these events are necessary in thinning the population. The only other option is regulated birth control, and we know how successful that has been in China!

CG, population control has been pretty successful in China, to the extent that they have a couple of hundred million people less than they would have had by now. But it has come at an awful cost - female infanticide and a skewed sex ratio which is bound to have adverse consequences in the near future.

It has helped lay the foundation for the ‘westernisation’ of China, which is presumably raising the average standard of living (but whether this means it is also raising the average quality of life as well is highly debatable)…. and leading to greatly increased CO2 emissions, which continue to rise rapidly, to the extent that they just completely overwhelm even the most optimistic CO2 reductions that we could ever make in Australia.

It has also largely contributed to our booming economy, which if properly managed, could really set us on the right course towards sustainability, but which if managed as it currently is being, will take us more rapidly towards the precipice.

So it’s a complex story.

You could actually mount an argument that in China, population growth reduction has led to and increase in greenhouse gas emissions.

But in Australia, and the US and other countries, the story is very different. Population growth leads directly to increases in GHG, and dilutes or cancels out or completely overwhelms efforts made to reduce them.