I quote someone from ABC radio talkback who remarked today "that if he wanted to dump his rubbish at the tip, he would have to pay for it, so why not polluters when they dump their rubbish in the atmosphere '.

This is precisely the issue.

Tony Abbott seeks to mislead when he refers a C.P.R.S as "a big new tax on everything" because "making polluters pay via a carbon tax and credit system and therefore not the average taxpayer, is possible", by simply ensuring that polluters cannot pass the cost of dumping their waste on to the consumer, but in fact are required absorb this cost out of their own margins.

Their business models most probably have excessive or unnecessarily high margins built in already and an expectation to have an ever bigger tip as they strive to continue their business as usual plan.

The polluters case proposes the consumer pay in order they be compensated for having to modify their behaviour i.e. being required to reduce current levels of CP or not increasing levels of CP in the future.

Abbott seems to be proposing that taxpayer spend a billion dollars a year for ten years whilst effectively allowing polluters to continue without requirement or incentive to seek renewable alternative sources of power etc for their profits. In fact he proposes "a big new tax on us". Nice one Tony.

Yes, a different coloured bucket but still containing the same fowl waste. Another good example of our electoral system giving us no options but those of the ruling class.

What a dill you are Thinker, you've taken the labor bait, hook line & sinker.

To start with, any one but a fool, or fellow traveler, now knows CO2 is not "polution".

Secondly, it is a good con to get the dills believing the carbon TAX will get the "big polluter". Like Thinker, some real dills will even feel smugly proud of that.

Obviously these people have not thought this through. The big user of CO2 is them, & it's them that our mate Ruddy is about to rip off. Rip off to get out of the money trouble he has all ready got himself, & therefore us, into. Your big poluters simply pass the tax onto the end user.

Even if he didn't understand before, Ruddy must now know, after Compenhagen, that the "science" was a con, but like an arrogant fool, he's not going to admit it. He's now depending on the oposition to get him out of his mistake, by defeating the bill.

RawMustard,
what has chicken $hit got to do with it ??

"What a dill you are" Hasbeen "you swallowed the" big polluters "argument hook line and sinker." or again you show your ignorance.
You really should learn to write without the insults simply because They backfire, as this one did.

What comes out of the smokestacks is more than just CO2 there are a cornucopia of other pollutants both gasses and particulates.
Not all of them are visible either which is the usual measure.They add to the motor car exhausts too.

When you start on the environment you are well out of your depth. Next time I'm in Qld and have free time, send me your address and we'll take you out on a scientific field trip to *show* you the facts of the environment.

The govenment has NO money.
The coporations will still need to make a profit.
So just guess, go on guess who will have to pay......thats right the tax payer.
The only ones who will win with an ETS are the traders.
Yes thats right the same so and so's that gave us the GFC.

Examinator, have you read anything in the last 10 years.

Any time you post your idea of science, you are always 10 to 20 years out of date. Guess that's what happens when you get your science only from WWf, or Greenpeace.

You are right up there with all the emotive claptrap though. More Greenpeace reading?

When you can't refute an argument, try shutting up, rather than trying to change the subject, then giving us more Greenpeace polluted argument, & expecting any thinking person to take it seriously.

I see even you don't try argue about the con of "make the big poluters pay", full marks for accepting that. Perhaps your eyes are opening just a little. Yes drop in, & I'll show you the light.

What a shameless climate skeptic you are Hasbeen, is there any pollution at all?.
I do agree that carbon is not the only, or worst pollution problem we have.

And as far as taking the Labor line as you suggest, far from it. Fact is, Labor has gone no where near far enough to make a difference anyway. And the Rudd Govt has gone no where near far enough in reversing or rectifying the most damaging policies of the Howard Govt to be anything more than a flowery facsimile of the former.

Also Hasbeen, you have not addressed my query; that the margins of polluters may already be excessive or more accurately sufficient compensation to allow them to absorb the cost of pollution anyway.

Also, they may then be encouraged to develop better, more sustainable technologies to increase their margins instead of expecting the taxpayer to foot the bill for business as usual.

An understanding must be reached on climate regardless of the view of those who take solace from the failure of Copenhagen.

Finally, Tony Abbott referred to the Govt's view of climate change as theological today, Mr Abbott cant distinguish the fundamental difference between theology "a faith based concept" and science "an evidential product".

Seriously, how can anyone trust anything the rudd government put forward.

They have already stuffed up Solar, insulation, fuel watch, grocery watch, broardband network.

In fact, is there anything he hasn't stuffed up?

And, if the so called poluters, (who by the way provide us with the very means to continue with our day to day lives) are charged with an additional burdon, they will either pass it on, or, they will cut staff. Either way, they will not put their hands in their pockets just so we can feel all warm and fuzzy about the environment.

My advise is to be very carefull before you go biting the hand that feeds you!

Thinker2 is not a thinkering to well.Even with Rudd's taxes and the share market derivatives,the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will not dimisish.No one is stopping fossil fuels being mined.If CO2 is a poison,don't mine it.No,lthe Aust Govts like NSW want even more coal mined while they punish farmers making farms carbon sinks.Total Hypocracy!

They just want to mine more and make the poor consumer pay a higher price to increase profits for the elite few.It is indeed the great global warming scam.The Northern hemisphere has experienced the coldest winter in over 100 yrs with expodential increases in co2.Co2 has increased by 26% in just 10 yrs.Temps should be rising dramatically if AGW theory is correct.

To All,
The problem is not CO2, it is polluted air CO2 is essential to life. Air pollution kills. Find a fuel that doesn't pollute and then we can go forward. Governments used to invest in research now they invest in pork barreling and have coined a new frase "user pays". When the owners of Telstra repurchased Telstra the game changed. Man has gone from the mindset of sheep herder to Bullock Driver. Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord. Identify the problem then fix it. Don't continue to be part of the problem. So is the glass half full or half empty. I am certain most pontificating here can't see the wood for the trees.
Richie 10

Well spoken examinator, as expected hasbeen.
Facts o first thanks rechtub and arjay word perfect knew what you would say, increased majority rechtub.
This Abbott madness, is a brand new tax, on tax payers, we are to pay while big polluters get of Scott free.
It is junk, it is going to sink beneath the waves and so is Abbott.
Should start a thread but in just days we will find out.
Are the greens sustainable.
let us face it their extreme wishes are not, no way either side can EVER VOTE for it, nore will we .
But in just days along with conservatives who can think they can pass the ETS.
WILL THEY?
just maybe
if not their fate is in the air.

Thinker, Examinator, you have both just as much as have admitted that you agree that CO2 caused global warming is a con. That you go along with it, because you want to bring down the western type economy. Then you wonder why people don't like your beheviour.

Have you ever thought of telling the truth, & having your opinions judged on their worth. No, of course not. You don't believe you could convince anyone of their value.

I don't know what you believe you can achieve for your childrens children, with lies & deciet, but it can't be too good an idea, if that's the only way of doing it.

Hasbeen,
Ok in the interest of fairness, what sites, books, would you suggest we read?
I've yet to read *ANY Post with supporting scientific data* from you. Lots of opinions from old women, the newspaper and TV (none of which are scientific authorities)

BTW Greenpeace? Show me any post of mine where I quote them as authority?

If you bothered to check the sites/books I post as references,you'll note they are current and scientifically verifiable information.
Some of the confirming data I quote comes from from recently launched9last 3-4 months and active satellites . none of which are mentioned by Monckton, Plimer or Carter. (they don't fit their mindsets)

I can only recommend you read a few sites that will clarify your confusion on what the working theory AGW/CC is actually about.
Clearly you have no idea at least scientifically.

BTW Smoke stack toxins, pollution, and car exhausts were the reason the CCP closed them all down in Beijing for the Olympic games.
It's also the reason several cities have bad pollution days including Brisbane, the atmosphere keeps in in place and the wind doesn't blow it away.

My daughter, who lives at home is 4/5 through a relevant Double degree on science and we discuss The issues regularly.

I have gained tertiary qualifications in the last 10 years.(computer programing, modeling, project design and management).

I've also done numerous university modules on relevant current science principals, so I could work taking measurements etc and computer work on a health/biological study on Morton Bay that went to the government.
Remember that one? *You* claimed there was no science to back the closures, your source the local disgruntled fishing club?

Oh yes, you're the one who wanted Joh back. How many years has he been gone?

All this is in addition to my BBus with majors in marketing and psych

All this has been published before.
Now Hasbeen, tell me yours.

PS I told you that you were out of your depth with environmental issues, and you should call everyone names in lieu of facts. Prove me wrong.

Examinator, a red herring perhaps, to hide the answer.

If it will help you, I finished my B Sc in 62, then did post grad stuff in the US on guess what. Yes heat, & also hydraulics. I know it's hard for you to believe, but I did quite a bit on radiation, & conduction.

You did ask.

I have no idea what that proves, but that's it.

A bit of reading about climategate would do more for your understanding of climate science. Byt then, we now know that the science has nothing to do with it for you.

Don't want to pry, but would your daghter be doing environmental science by any chance? I sure hope not. I had a look at some of the course notes on one of those recently. Propaganda, & little else, my mates daughter got high distinctions, with about 10% attendance. A real joke.

Hasbeen,
You accused me of being 20 years out of date I just proved that wrong.

BTW your BSc is how old? 40 + years ago
The mind boggles how many advancements there has been since then
out of your field of expertise.

You've read a bit about "Climategate?" where? what authority?
That's not science! Keep digging, you're burying your specific science credibility in irrelevancy. You are simply not scientifically competent in the specific area.

Your friends daughter? Think about that statement, that isn't proof is here-say at best. Bollocks at worst. When? where?

BTW you asked me no question just made a load of bogus assertions, so what is it specifically, I'm supposedly dodging?

I'll back the relevance of my science on the subject at hand, to your very specific unrelated 48 yo BSc any day. The key term is *relevance*.

I repeat, where are your references, reasoning. All lost in the bluster, me thinks.

When push comes to shove your on the ground, up to date, relevant science& experience is virtually limited to newspaper competence ...i.e. nil.

You are entitled to an opinion, that doesn't require facts, but if you're going to call other people names, and treat with disdain CSIRO, NASA and several universities in areas you have no knowledge in etc, then you're setting yourself up as a self proclaimed expert, a source of ridicule.

Your degree and experience are quite specific and if I ever wander into that discipline, then, you are in your right to call me names. However, untill I or others do, some civility and objectivity is apposite.

FYI I do not claim expert status but clearly I am far more current in the relevant field than you.

BTW, my daughter is doing a BSc + B marine Bio, that's two degrees and she's heading for masters in both.
She often vets my posts and corrects them where appropriate.

I agree Arjay (not about my thinking), but that the Govt's ETS goes nowhere near far enough either, and Richie 10 brings forward the issue of "user pays"; an attitude adjustment provided for us by the powers that be with regard to whom it is we ultimately believe responsible for the down side of things.

I should never have mentioned Tony Abbott and thereby(sadly),introduced party politics to the discussion. My original post was about being time to pay the rent for the future.

About the attitudes we have, regarding the issue of human pollution and it's affect on our planet and it's habitat in general, I think it is absolutely appropriate to suggest that the consumer did not make the decisions about how we have achieved our needs; but a group of elite decision makers have decided in the past, are doing so now, and will seemingly do so in the future. "They" decided to burn fossil fuels to generate power and transport, they decided to chop down forests to make paper, they got us into this mess in the first place so why cant they now pay to get us out.

Yesterdays decision makers are not todays I hear you say, but regardless, todays decision makers are just as capable of continuing the bone headed short sighted sort of thinking that their predecessors were capable of, based upon they same unsustainable set of beliefs and principals that their forebears held.

The time has come to pay the rent I say again, and people should understand "who it is" that is actually responsible for our past, current and future predicaments and elect Govt's that will make them fix it; because they (commerce and industry) are now the only one's that can fix it

HasBeen: ALL Australians [Degree or no Degree]deserve the right to contribute, and in the process, educate others on Forums such as this. After working with thousands of Australians who have attained degrees in most fields; it is interesting to note that many without degrees, are, in many instances, better able to 'observe, 'identify', 'innovate' [factually] and correctly assess data and updates on climate change or any other issue.

Suffering from sleep deprivation tonight and would have phrased the above concisely. My point in a nutshell is that scientists often interact and take on board an independent brain and eye that is more neutrally qualified.

There would be quite a few scientists interested in many of The forum's participants' viewpoints on climate change concepts put forth here, including The Examinator's concepts.

Debating opinions are fine, however hinting or questioning an individual's qualifications is pointless and has no relevance as to whether their claims are true or false.

Thinker2
To start with, the globe is not warming, it's cooling. Secondly, carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than are water or air. Thirdly, there is not a skerrick of evidence that carbon dioxide causes global warming. Computer models are not evidence, and in any event *all* the computer models relied on by the warmist hysterics failed to predict the current cooling phase. In other words, the much-vaunted consenus was *wrong*. Fourthly, carbon dioxide is plant food, and the more of it we have, the more plant life there'll be - you know, like a greenhouse?

You don't seem to understand the connection between the so-called "polluters" and the mass of the people. The reason the "polluters" are producing so much carbon dioxide is because they are using it as part of productive processes to *satisfy human wants*. Why are they doing that? Because the mass of the people are directing them to do so, by paying for it! That's what you're argument is with. The root of the evil you are railing against is human life. You don't seem to understand that people don't want to die just to please you, they don't want to cut short their vitality, their children's lives, or their own enjoyment, just so you can have the enjoyment of sucking lemons and declaring it to be a virtue and an imperative.

You should stop fretting, stop carping, stop your anti-human hypocrisy, and stop your nasty fascist religious worship of omnipotent government.

The carbon tax is not like a tipping fee, it is like a compulsory tithe being levied on the whole population to pay for the religious foolery of a cult of deluded fools.

Very well put Jardine K Jardine.

The science is one thing that we may be able express, discuss or exchange our views about till the methane emitting cows come home JKJ, but I was looking back into history and pointing out, that human decision making has had a role in the state of the planet today. Of course overpopulation is our primary problem but I'm certainly not suggesting that some of us be extinguished or even inconvenienced.

All I'm asking JKJ is, "can business/commerce offer the solutions we need to solve the problem and can they actually afford to foot the bill, instead of their position which is that the taxpayer should foot the bill regardless. (because we exist, it is therefore our fault).

Historically decisions (re our modes of transport, power generation, population, food production, etc) have been made by our world leaders with a pattern of scant disregard for the environment, when other decisions regarding our technological directions would have been better.

Paper is the best example of this, we allowed the patent process out of the US, for making paper out of wood pulp. "Even though Dioxin was a known bi-product of this process. We could have made equally good paper out plants grown annually instead without introducing Dioxin to the food chain.This decision is a classic historical example of profit driven manipulation of law and govt. The patent owners even funded lobbyists campaigning to have a particular annual plant suitable for making high quality paper banned. And succeeded.

I think JKJ that there is an environmental problem. I think that it requires a change in our attitudes about the affect we're having upon the remaining inhabitants of this little rock in the middle of nowhere (not just humans). It is also ridiculously far to another inhabitable rock when this one's no longer available to us.

JKJ it appears to me that your one of those rare people who think their isn't a problem.
Am I right?