Belly,

Terminological In-exactitude my backside. I never used the term, in fact the only reference in this thread is yourself.

I stated that we would be going ahead of our major trading partners and competitors. The productivity report says just that. The only thing that the report says that backs labor in any way is that a carbon tax is the most efficient method of reducing GHG in Australia. A point that I have never disputed.

My point was that the carbon tax would not be high enough to encourage any change in generation, and would reduce emissions in Australia by two means 1) efficiency gains 2) by moving carbon intensive emissions off shore. The sum of the global change in emissions would be close to zero.

This would have no effect on climate change in Australia, or make any difference for our children.