[Deleted for abuse and user suspended.]

I never back down to the likes of you RobbyH.
needless insults miss placed over confidence, just what are you running away from?
I truly look to other posters for balance and understanding, but while not bothering to report you .
Ask this, so far in your latest return you have not posted once without insulting at least some in every thread.
Is that god for OLO?
I am reminded of a school yard bully, they stand on clay feet and low IQ, good by bloke.

RobbyH,

Assuming that all countries introduce a price on carbon, then a carbon tax is the most efficient way of reducing emissions. However, if Australia goes it alone, all it does is move the emissions off shore.

To illustrate this, let me use Blue Scope steel as an example. Producing steel requires blast furnaces that consume coal to reduce the iron ore to metal in a set ratio of carbon to iron. Inefficiencies can be reduced, but there is a basic chemical and thermal minimum requirement. Presently BSS is one of the most efficient in the world, and consumes less carbon in transport.

Consumers in Australia have the choice of buying from Wollongong or China, and because of the low cost of doing business in China, already the lion's share is imported.

With a carbon tax, the price of Australian steel increases, and the price of imported steel stays the same. BSS closes and the production of steel in China increases. Emissions in Aus go down, but emissions in China and other exporters go up even more. The net result in this example is that a carbon tax increases GHG emissions and puts thousands of Australians out of work.

The lesson to the big polluter countries is that a carbon tax in other countries is great for the non taxed countries' economy.

Go it alone, I note many are saying if we put a price on carbon we will be going alone.
It may be of more worth, just a thought, to highlight that many have done this long ago.
Carbon trading could be critiqued by highlighting the trouble in carbon credits, prices have been all over the place.
We could even look truly past politics and ask is climate change real? are humans involved?
What is the likely out come.
Should we act.
If it is real.
If the impacts are bad, then act, and forget the price.
Now blue scope steel would say it will kill them, fact is steel making in this country has been shrinking for many years.
Yes right now they struggle cheap offshore labour is the problem.
In time one side will be proven right, we need carbon tax or we do not.
I am prepared to be judged but am aware of the smell of self interest that develops when politics sides with big business.

HERE are the 100 reasons,
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/146138/146138

released in a dossier issued by the European Foundation,

why climate change is natural and not man-made:

1)There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity.

2)Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.

3)Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.

4)After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.

5)Throughout the Earth’s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher – more than ten times as high.

6)Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time.

7)The 0.7C increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends.


8)The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favourable reviewers not the 4,000 usually cited.

9)Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists – in a scandal known as “Climate-gate” - suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming

10)A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years.

11)Politicians and activiists claim rising sea levels are a direct cause of global warming but sea levels rates have been increasing steadily since the last ice age 10,000 ago

12)Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor of Biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London says climate change is too complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds

15)Professor Plimer, Professor of Geology and Earth Sciences at the University of Adelaide, stated that the idea of taking a single trace gas in the atmosphere, accusing it and finding it guilty of total responsibility for climate change, is an “absurdity

That was a well put together post from start to finish One Under God.
I would like to say I agree, but do not.
May I ask why the experts who say man made climate change is true are rubbished.
Often by some who are experts in other Fields.
Now fossil fuels, note we are getting short of them?
Not coal, any idea how much money rides on us continuing to export coal and use it.
Pietro chemicals would you spend a few bob defending all that cash if it was yours.
Just maybe the disinformation is served best by such as the greens.
See I have no doubt, not a bit, conservation care for the environment, climate change fear, is leg ironed by the greens.
People love to throw lines like water melon at concerns for this planet fueled by a radical group pretending to be conservationist.
One day we may just get a Chance to ask why so many floods? fires? droughts ,storms,
How much has our population grown in 50 years ,200 years ,the next 50 years.
The deception is the idea that humanity could ever not damage the planet we would crush the great barrier reef to make cement if there was a dollar in it.