OUG I am watching you with interest, your efforts to improve are noted and admired.
But mate I truly am unsure just what you are on about.
Forget your need for the weed,is tobacco not big?
Given your one man stance that deaths are not related to smoking just maybe they, coal, mining, power petro chemicals, do not want change?
Not a clue what your policy as described could do about over use of harmful fossil fuels.
How it promotes change to cleaner fuels.
Or if you think we should try for change.
We will get around this very real conspiracy to cover up the BIG CASH behind polluting our planet.

In an interesting admission Tim Flannery admits that without a global effort to reduce CO2 emissions there will be no real difference.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/no-one-country-can-save-the-reef-says-tim-flannery/story-fn59niix-1226061500198

For those really interested in what Tim Flannery is concerned about try the following website:

http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-national/no-doubt-humans-causing-global-warming-20110523-1ezdu.html?...

A dead end street if I ever saw one SM.
Yes it is true, but not even a chance, and you like Abbott know it, we will act alone.
EU has fined Quantas already, and I would have thought the equally interesting quote from today *Australian exports could suffer because we do not have a charge on Carbon* is worth quoting.
The deception behind coalition statements like that post SM is in very real danger of blowing up in the face of impending release of details of country's charging for emissions.

Lexi,

Thanks for pointing out that Tim Flannery is a climate change advocate. I would never have guessed.

What I pointed out was that even he admits that without the rest of the world working on climate change, there will be no reduction to the effects in Australia, even with the carbon tax.

Belly,

As for this EU "fine" it is classified as an environmental border tariff, and applies to all non European airlines. I am interested to see how long it holds, as the US, China, Canada and others not only plan to challenge the tax at the WTO but are going to impose punitive tariffs on EU airlines flying to China, the US, etc.

Secondly, the EU is a relatively small market for our goods and we buy twice as much from them as they do from us. A trade war would hurt them far more.

Climate change science is a subject on which many people actually know little but feel they ought to know a great deal. It is therefore a perfect subject for people to give a pseudo-answer and that answer will be in line with their broader political opinions. In other words many people take the limits of their own vision for the limits of the world. Tim Flannery is not one of those people.

To suggest that nothing will happen even if we attempt to take any action is understandable for those who have a propensity to discount the future - "a bird in the hand is worth more than two in the bush."
Discounting the future is one of the most common practices in the business world, and therefore we should confront the practice head-on. What are the reasons for some people's apparent short-sightedness?
The Australian has an agenda (like Andrew Bolt, and Shadow Minister),
selective quoting is part and parcel of what they do.

However, there are psychological, political, reasons why these people favour the present rather than the future, and of course there are economic reasons.
The psychological reasons have to do with risk aversion, any one of us might not be around to benefit from a good time in the future - so let's have it now regardless of the long-term consequences. And of course the economic reasons are - "where there's smoke there's jobs,"
and profits to be made. Some people and political parties see pollution as a regrettable but inevitable by product of desired economic development. Also, preventing or correcting pollution can be costly, and technically complex. However, in general, most industrialised nations are now actively trying to limit the effects of pollution - its only the less developed societies that are more concerned with economic growth, that tend to see pollution as part of the price they have to pay for it. Lucily our government is forward-thinking - and does believe in long-term solutions.