Peter

Why does it have to work the way you say? Many people believe that a straight tax on carbon use is far more beneficial than a subsidy for solar etc. Your example of $1 coal vs $2 solar would be much better solved by increasing coal to $2 or even $3 and using the money gained to remediate and prevent the damage done by excessive carbon emissions.

Living standards are the key and I am afraid that many of us will have to curb our profligacy and waste, our consumption and disposable lifestyles. If the whole world were to live like Australians there is no doubt that the earths capacity in resources like water and clean air, energy, land, food etc etc would never be able to cope and collapse would be inevitable.

I am beginning to realise that it makes no difference whether you levy a carbon tax, have an ETS or just subsidise the power stations to
either rebuild or install carbon capture if it will work.

No matter how you charge there is only one person who will pay; everyone !
It will come out of our pocket, whether by tax or higher electricity taxes. The ETS is the one that does worry me in that the financial
"whizz kids" will get into it with their derivarives and skim it off.

This is a great subject Peter, for me the key words you used were 'Standard of living'.
This is the centre of the problem we all have with the environmental debate and real economic reform to a low carbon economy. We all have to realise that nothing good will be achieved without sacrifice and the first to go will be standard of living.
This does not mean that our quality of life must suffer, this is why we fear a drop in standard of living so much. For that matter the standard need not change much either if we are prepared to do the little extras to make a difference. I have three children and more or less all the mod con's. Despite this our power bill is on average 1/3 that of my neighbours. I achieve this with simple means, solar hot water, switch everything off, keep lighting to a minimum and of course the big one, no airconditioning. These are skills i learned when living on solar only for 8 years.
We all need to use much less energy and it can be done without great cost just a little effort. Real reform to the carbon consumer economy will take time as consuming less and using less will mean less jobs though out the economy and less wealth in the super sector. This is what we really fear, higher unemployment and less personal wealth, you know the "ME" generation issues. With a little courage we might be able to lead the way and create an industry in some forms of renewables that can supply the rest of the world while they catch up, but only if we have the courage to lead.

Peter Hume,

You are correct in stating that the WAY (method)we CURRENTLY attempt to nullify pollution etc. is in many case and under current thinking is often simply moving the problem (not actually removing it.)

I put it to you that the issue THE WAY we're going about things.
The problem is the majority of people are locked into the view that what we have is essentially the only way things can be done given current structural systems. The logic then goes that the only options available are 'jury rigged manipulation' of elements within current or near structural systems. Any alternative thinking is regarded as the equivalent to modern day heresy ( opposing conditioned quasi religious beliefs).

Conversely we should be looking at it in mechanistic problem solving manner.
The questions should be What do we want for the world and us?
What do we need to do to make it happen?
And not get stymied at the first hurdle protecting vested interests.

No this doesn't mean eating bean curd and playing flutes or other versions of backward living. We simply look for the low hanging fruit rather than planting the orchard.

I agree in part Peter that recycling is not always better sense where the carbon output is higher to do so, but as you said you would need a study across all aspects of the production chain. On the face of it though I think the cotton thread argument would fall on the side of re-using but that is because there is not much carbon output compared to manufacture and agricultural processes.

The fact is our standard living has in some ways appeared to increase but in other more important ways decreased.

We have more 'stuff' but we also have more debt, many can no longer raise a family on one wage and the big backyard with vegies and chooks have been sacrificed for McMansion style houses with handkerchief backyards. That might suit some urban dwellers and that is fine but for many it is a backward step.

There is no doubt our standard of living has changed but it has not always got better depending on your viewpoint.

There is no doubt that some aspects of our consumer society will change under a low carbon economy and priorities will shift if it means accepting our share in a global effort for economic equity. Wealth and power are now in the hands of the few rather than shared and wage disparity reflects that state of affairs.

Examinator is right we do have to ask the questions about what it means to be prosperous as 'prosperity' is a word that is bandied about but never really defined except in the broadest of economic terms, but not really encompassing individual and community wellbeing. And wellbeing cannot be expressed always in economic outputs.