10-40,000 people across the country rallied to 'say yes to the carbon tax. The protest was organised by unions and eco groups. Much of the same "last chance to save the planet" rhetoric featured in the speeches.

What I still haven't seen explained by the protesters or the government is how the tax will actually stop climate change. Do these people honestly think that taxing the Australian populace there is going to be a significant reduction in global CO2 output?

Can anyone who attended the protest today explain exactly how those tax dollars are going to be used?

Can anyone attending the protests today explain how a 20% reduction in Australia's 1% contribution to global CO2 will undo the effects of the big CO2 producers America, China, India and Russia?

Can any of the protesters explain why the pro carbon tax campaign has resorted to showing billowing steam as an example to 'carbon' going into the atmosphere?

And can any of the protesters explain how human CO2 is more damaging than the 96% of the CO2 produced naturally?

The tax will reduce the rate at which fossil carbon is burned.
When the oil runs out 1,000,000,000 people will starve.
Other countries have the tax,they will not trade with Australia.
The tax refund will exactly compensate the average consumer.
Large users will pay more.
Small users will have money to spare.
Some of the tax will develop renewable energy.
The counties with this tax are doing well.

So how many of these people attending, have never bothered to
install even a solar hot water system on their roofs? 70% of
the Australian population still have not, simple as pee technology
that has been around for more then 30 years. It would even save
them money.

Attending a demo, signing a petition and waving flags is easy
peasy stuff, compared to be able to think a bit rationally.

Some of the carbon tax will subsidize solar water heaters.
Electric water tank heaters are no longer allowed for new houses.
Gas water tank heaters are allowed for new houses.
Using gas directly for heating avoids the losses in converting
the energy in the gas to electricity.

Were the people at the rally irrational because they had not fitted
solar water heating?.
Shall we ignore them because they are irrational?.

I will ignore that spin.

Why does it always come back to the "we only contribute 1%, so if we cut back it won't achieve anything" argument?

It seems to me that it's the same as the guy who continues to violate water restrictions because watering his lawn for four hours a day, seven days a week won't reduce dam levels. He's a small-time player, right?

Or the kid who steals a lolly because the shop has heaps, so they won't miss one.

Yeah, we're a small fish in the world of global polluters. Unless you twist the figures to per capita rates, of course. In the grand scheme of things, our emissions would barely be noticed if they disappeared overnight. However, what right to we have to expect the big-time polluters to clean up their act when we won't follow suit? Why would they bother when we "white western imperialists" won't do the same?

I'm not convinced that a carbon tax is the answer. It seems to me that the government isn't even sure what the carbon tax will look like or what it will achieve. Hell, I'm not even entirely convinced that there is such a thing as anthropogenic climate change. I am, however, convinced that if there is a cleaner way of doing things, without detriment to our quality of life (and here, again, I'm not sure about the carbon tax), then we should investigate that way.

*Shall we ignore them because they are irrational?.*

Yup. Better to judge then by what they do, then how
loud they croak at the demo. People go to demos for
the entertainment these days.

Yeah, we're a small fish in the world of global polluters.....yes and why are you worried about others? If they don't see it, make sure you say " turn the boats away" cause once it all goes belly up, they will come and thank your lucky stars were an island. And we can protect it.

Let the world go crazy.....we will just watch.

What have we to worry about? The waters will rise, and many people know where the sea used to come at high-tide, don't we:)

Yes! greenies.....what bad people they are.....yes....so very bad. I guess if this planet dies, we wont see them as someone who warned you:) YOUR CALL:)

We dont") They have F..ed up! but I wont tell:)

Have a read:)

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/climate-change/impacts/sea_level_rise/

Its your world:) I just live on it.

LEA

undidly:>>The tax will reduce the rate at which fossil carbon is burned.<<

Undidly were you aware that global domestic consumption of energy is less than 20% of all energy consumed? That means that industry consumes over 80%. If you believe a tax to curb our personal use of energy is anything but a sham, you are sadly simplistic in your understanding of the Green Movement and their manipulators.

The Club of Rome published material that lay down the strategy to get the green movement off the backs of the polluters (predominantly the members and associates of TCoR) and onto the consumer. In plain talk, governments lobbied by the Green Movement do not hassle business about spending money and cleaning up their act, they tax us, and you think that is great and that it will achieve a meaningful difference, silly person

Oh just one more for the great people that are not acting like............well you be the judge:)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/27/rising-sea-levels-australia-beaches

When the world goes mad, Australia gets stronger:)

As you were.

LEA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXqOLXSZ5Xs

LEA

Otokonoko:>>It seems to me that it's the same as the guy who continues to violate water restrictions because watering his lawn for four hours a day, seven days a week won't reduce dam levels. He's a small-time player, right?<<

O as I said to didly, you also have not got a clue.

Your indoctrinated thoughts of spying on your neighbors consumption like a self appointed water and energy guardian reinforces how well the propaganda has worked with some who have not the scope to look past the spin, you are the majority, so don't feel bad O, quisling becomes you.

Interesting.....and I love the ads......even developers are developing solar technologies into new homes........aren't we the poor misguided non smart people, or are we:)

Up grade, or be the problem:)

I don't care, we;ll that's not true.

Free hot water? I wonder if that helps?

LEA

*aren't we the poor misguided non smart people, or are we:)*

Well Lea, I can only judge by what you post. Given that you
still haven't seemingly figured out that your nick will be
automatically listed at the bottom of each post, so write
it again, every time, perhaps the description fits you
to a T.

10-40,000 ?
how much did Julia fork out for that ? Did she go halves with the unions ? Rallies ain't cheap these days.

Well Lea, I can only judge by what you post. Well most would say "shut the hell up:)" but that would be......:) yabby. I have a song to the people that ripped the land up and shot the indigenous people.

Yabby, I don't know you either, and your politics are for the people you side with........Are you a farmer? If so, that would make a lot of sence.

Look into your heart, if you have one for this great place, we call Australia.

A song just for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFXRSnQU1rs

And the world one day, all shook hands.

DFWMe!

LEA

LEA

And Yabby....the ship is sinking. Hey! Dont worry about anything right! People on the earth understand whats on the gambling table:) There not stupid. Lets say your the new Government, and whats your next move?

LEA

One more question to those who want us to "say yes to a carbon tax."

Can we please put it to a Vote that is binding?

I'm all for democracy and it would be nice to see that our Government also believes in serving the will of the people.

In just a few years, ten no more, when conservatives back their thoughts that climate changes in part man made.
When the Turnbulls,the understanding pro ETS side again rules conservatives.
Let us hope those here,putting views so very much against what clearly must be done, search and use of new clean fuels, will the nay sayers remember how wrong they are.
How yabby or any one else can you say with certainty those protesters are doing nothing/ have no solar /are not reducing their foot print? on what evidence.
The debate is suffering as mud replaces thoughts and ideas.

Belly... your comment is so typical of the Believers. It fails to answer one question posed, and reflects a blind faith that those in Government will be able to make a change to the climate, which they can't possibly do.

Once again I ask why those promoting a carbon tax need to resort to exaggeration and deceit to sell their messge?

What are specific climate influencing measures that will be adopted if the tax happens? No one knows the answer because the government hasn't said and this government is very good at saying one thing and then doing another.

A carbon tax will not have any impact on global climate change!

20 years down the track Australia's minimal reducton to atmospheric CO2 will have accomplished nothing. If there is any truth from the government's climate report, then all the catastrophies predicted will happen regardless of a carbon tax. Thankfully, those predictions are worse case scenarios that are very unlikely to occur.

Don't get sucked in by the alarmist hysteria, the sky is not falling.

Thousands say yes to a carbon tax, Millions say NO.

"A Galaxy poll for News Ltd shows the majority of Australians are against a carbon tax and believe it will leave them worse off financially.

The poll - of 500 people around Australia on June 1 and 2 - reveals 58 per cent are opposed to the tax, with just 28 per cent in favour. The remainder are undecided.

News Limited says two-thirds of voters want Prime Minister Julia Gillard to call an election before introducing the tax, and three-quarters believe it will leave them financially worse off and deliver little or no benefit for the environment.

Only 24 per cent think Ms Gillard has a mandate to introduce the tax.

The poll comes in the wake of Sunday's say yes' rallies across the nation which attracted tens of thousands of supporters who urged the federal government to put a price on carbon dioxide emissions."

What is wrong with you all?
Carbon dioxide is a life support gas that is not harmful to life on earth - up to 5,000ppm which is the level in submarines and spacecraft. Hydroponic tomatoes are grown in greenhouses with 1,000ppm carbon dioxide. Have you heard of any deaths in those work places? If they are so bad, why doesn't WorkSafe close them down?
We need more of it if we are to keep food production up to the level demanded by an increasing world population.
There would be NO LIFE without carbon dioxide gas.

You can usually split environmentally-conscious people into two categories;
1- people who are serious about protecting environment and want simple practical measures to make a difference (by things that DO make a difference)- like promoting alternate fossil fuels, fuel-efficient products, and altering their own conduct accordingly to minimize their blueprint (and end up saving money).
2-people that jump on the trendy carbon bandwagon;
It's not so much the outcome of their behaviour as much as the act paying penance for the environment. Doing it hard for nature is just so noble a gesture. Simply installing a solar panel and lacks the self-absorbed romance and piety.

Personally, I strongly endorse all rights and subsidies to green energy;
However, I think a carbon tax or trading scheme is a scam and the people that are pushing for it are either financial beneficiaries, or morons.
There is absolutely no benefit. People are going to use as much electricity as they feel they need and will simply stop being able to fund other parts of their lives (and these days, we need a lot to stay informed and often, employed).
Meanwhile- measures to promote alternate energy are being drastically scaled back- to accommodate this stupid carbon scheme.
So where exactly is the 'alternative'?

Don't be silly Belly.

After you have tried a few more leaders you are going to co-opt Turnbull to lead the Labor party.

He may even get a second term as opposition leader with Labor, before you chuck him out too.

Believe me, this is more likely than he will lead the libs again. Far to many despise him for them to be that silly.

What is it about economists. Hewson was making a bunny of himself in the media the other day. I think we may have been a bit lucky he & the libs lost that one.

Hasbeen,
When I look back at the party leaders for the past 40 years, it is hard to pick the worst out of Labor or Liberal. Bugger all you could pick as top of crop.

No doubt it has been a poor field I woulddn't back any of them.

Don't give up on Belly yet, he may well see the light and common sence will prevail. I recall him saying that he thought Howard was too tough on refugees and there had to be a better way. I now see that he has altered his stance and thinks the illegal boat people are con artists and shonks. He even thinks Gillard should go, and he can have Turnbull if they want him.

At least Abbott stopped us from getting an ETS, that is worth a few points.

undidly: "The tax refund will exactly compensate the average consumer.
"

No it wont - there is this thing called beaucracy that will take their cut! And dont think that it will be insignificant. The problem with taxes is that it takes so much in resources (money) to administer and police, that its hardly worth doing.

If its personal consumption that they want to reduce, better to use the existing systems and just increase the GST or income tax rate. Very unpopular, but the end result is that people will have less money to spend, so will reduce consumption across the board. The problem is that no more public servants will make a living off it, so its not being promoted. Shame, because ALL of the extra tax collected could go straight through to the welfare system and reimburse those less well-off - no extra costs because the systems are already in place.

Gillard has a mandate?? (a) she didnt put it to an election, (b) she doesnt hold a majority in parliament. More like - the Greens have promised support for some weird thing she wants to get through parliament if she pushes for a carbon tax. This stinks like Bob Brown.

These are all good questions by the layman confused by the debate. The reason we laymen are confused because those who make megabucks from the current system (sad but true) are deliberately muddying the waters, while the poets, priests, and politicians who want to do the right thing aren't doing a good job of explaining it.

So Yours Truly is going to have a go where finer minds failed:

"... how the tax will actually stop climate change"

By increasing the cost of carbon-based energy, providing an incentive to reduce your consumption.

"...taxing the Australian populace ... is going to be a significant reduction in global CO2 output?"

By taxing the Australian populace, there will be a decrease in CO2 output in Australia. By taxing the world populace, there will be a decrease in world output.

"Can anyone ... explain exactly how those tax dollars are going to be used?"

Hopefully they will be used to reduce your income tax to compensate you for your higher electricity bills. Probably they will also be used to bribe those rent-seekers who currently get subsidised to burn coal etc. to drop their opposition. Yes, you read that right.

"Can anyone ... explain how a 20% reduction in Australia's 1% contribution to global CO2 will undo the effects of the big CO2 producers America, China, India and Russia?"

By reducing Australia's contribution by 20%. Of course, everyone else needs to reduce their consumption as well, but that 'everyone' includes us. By the way, 1% is an important number - it is furphy-ous to downplay it. But frankly, just because China jumps of the Sydney Harbour Bridge doesn't mean we should as well.

"And can any of the protesters explain how human CO2 is more damaging than the 96% of the CO2 produced naturally?"

It's the same as the difference between a botox injection that gives you attractive, pouting, 'bee-stung' lips and the botox injection that kills you. It's the same as the difference between smoking a cigarette and injecting the all the nicotine from a packet of cigarettes into your bloodstream in one hit.

Nice try Pastel Blue, at least you had a go. Trouble is the big producers of CO2, America, India, China and Russia aren't going to follow Austalia's lead.

I'm afraid I totally fail to see or understand your point with the botox and nicotine examples. The natural carbon cycle is producing 96% of the CO2 going into the atmosphere. Over the last 70 years the amount in the atmosphere has increased roughly 1 part per million per year from 317ppm to 387ppm. There is no solid concrete proof the extra 70 parts per million are the cause of climate change.

The carbon tax is a convenient way for the government to make people feel guilty and then redeem themselves. I suspect the true agenda is appeasing the Greens and generating the funds to reduce the deficit.

"...the big producers of CO2, America, India, China and Russia aren't going to follow Austalia's lead."

Correct. They'll be doing it for reasons other than to imitate trendsetting Australia.

"...I totally fail to see or understand your point with the botox and nicotine examples. The natural carbon cycle is producing 96% of the CO2 going into the atmosphere. Over the last 70 years the amount in the atmosphere has increased roughly 1 part per million per year from 317ppm to 387ppm. There is no solid concrete proof the extra 70 parts per million are the cause of climate change."

My examples were flawed. A better explanation is the straw that broke the camel's back. Alternatively, are you familiar with the concept of a 'tipping point'?

Having 0.04% blood alcohol content is deemed to be safe to drive but a 'mere' 20% increase - or 0.05% blood alcohol content - is not. Same thing.

I think you'll find that the consensus of people who know about these things is that climate change is man-made. And even if all of them are wrong, not performing one's ablutions where one eats is a good idea anyway.

"The carbon tax is a convenient way for the government to make people feel guilty and then redeem themselves."

Why bother when it's so much easier to do nothing?

Anyway, rightly or wrongly, 'people' already feel guilty anyway. If a carbon tax takes away that guilt, then that's problem solved.

"I suspect the true agenda is appeasing the Greens and generating the funds to reduce the deficit."

I think that's a short-term explanation for an issue that was around long before and will continue to be around long after the current Parliamentary seating arrangements.

You may be right, but it doesn't matter what the horse-trading was all about. If someone accidentally does the right thing, or is forced to do the right thing, then that can only be a good thing.

Appeasing the Greens will keep the Greens happy, and paying off the deficit will keep Tony Abbott happy, so everyone's happy. Isn't that wonderful?

40,000. Wow! The state of Origin match attracted 52,000, and they all paid good money and the game entertained millions.

The “say yes” brigade must be the first Australians ever, to go out on the streets to say “Tax me, Tax me” This tell us most of them don’t actually pay tax at the moment.

Come on Blue, you've got to be kidding.

I don't know a single person who is feeling guilty, angry at being lied to, but definitely not guilty.

A bit frustrated too, perhaps, that there are enough fools in the country to go to a rally. Of course many of those are gravy train passengers or conductors, but some have just been conned into actually believing the rubbish.

There is a large percentage who will never believe anything to come from a "scientists" ever again, & most of those who I know are graduates. These are the most angry, because for years they, & I, just accepted what came from academia as gospel.

We all expect to have to look for the fine print in the polly speak, but we did expect more integrity from our teachers, & those we did our degrees with.

Oh dear, sonofgloin. Your post says a lot more about your cognitive ability than it does about me.

1) You declare that I am 'indoctrinated'. What about my post suggests that I am indoctrinated in any way? My last paragraph would indicate the exact opposite, I would have thought. Well, I suppose I COULD be indoctrinated if believing that finding a better way to achieve the same outcomes is a good thing signifies indoctrination.

2) You then go on to attack my analogy about water usage, without explaining why the analogy is wrong. It seems that you didn't even understand that it was an analogy. For future reference, sentences that open with 'it seems to me that it's the same as ...' often lead to analogies. That might help you out somewhat.

3) You further accuse me of spying on my neighbours, which further indicates that you have no idea what I was talking about. For the record (and avoiding the use of further analogies, which seem to cause you considerable grief), I was simply stating that every small-time consumer contributes to big-time consumption. By extension, the only way to reduce big-time consumption is for the small-time consumers to reduce their consumption. Thus, just as we can demand China cuts back their omissions, they can demand the same of us. On our own, we won't make much of a difference; as a collective, we might. That is, of course, if (and the key word is IF) humans are causing climate change.

4) Do you even know what a quisling is? Your post would indicate that you don't.

sbr108; 10-40,000 people across the country rallied to 'say yes to the carbon tax.

Todays Courier Mail, Only 28% of people in favour of a carbon tax, & 73% 0f people think they will be worse off with a carbon tax. Only 20% of people believe there will be any major impact on the enviroment with a carbon tax.

Undidly; Using gas directly for heating avoids the losses in converting the energy in the gas to electricity.

The cost to the consumer is dearer using gas hot water.

Pastel Blue;"... how the tax will actually stop climate change"
By increasing the cost of carbon-based energy, providing an incentive to reduce your consumption.

Increasing the cost of energy won't cost the Producer anything, they will pass the cost on to the consumer plus admin costs.

Regardless of weather there is a carbon tax or not, the sea is going to rise up to 500 mm over the next 1000 years anyway. Such is the natural cycle of the Earth. Then the earth will have an ice age & the water will go down 30 meters. Such is the cycle of the Earth.
See; http://sahultime.monash.edu.au/explore.html. According to that the sea has risen 3 meters in 7400 years & is still going up. Befor that the sea rose 129 meters in 12000 years.

The problem is. Does is really matter? Life on Earth will adapt to the slow change anyway. There is no need to panic or do yourself in. It's all going to end on the 21st Dec. 2012 anyway. ;-)

Interesting stats, Jayb.

I consider myself an optimist, but the stats you provide suggest that 20% of Australians are more optimistic than I am. Perhaps if a carbon tax cripples industry, we'll see bluer skies in the short term. If a carbon tax encourages industry to adopt greener practices, we might see bluer skies in the mid-long term. My guess is that it will be carefully structured to do neither. As for anthropogenic climate change, I'd say the carbon tax will have little effect. It may, however, allow us to be better conditioned for a future world in which visibly green government may be a norm rather than a rarity.

@spindoc: I take that to mean you're out of arguments.

@Hasbeen re 'guilty': sbr108's idea, not mine. Ask him.

re 'scientists': What is so special about climate change that made you stop believing scientists? Let's be intellectually honest. The boffins told us something we didn't want to hear, and we've lacked the courage to do anything but deny it.

@jayb re 'pass the cost on to the consumer': And?

re 'The Courier Mail': Sorry, those stats mean very little, except that nerdy climate scientists and political boffins have to do a better job of explaining their message to the people.

re 'natural cycle': Maybe. Maybe not. (Nice graphic, BTW. I don't see how it supports your thesis, though.) I don't think we should take that chance, especially if the price we're asked to pay is doing what we should have done anyway.

re 'does it matter?': Does it in the scheme of things really matter if we pay more for electricity? Maybe the New Agers are right about 2012, but then we'll both be toast. Something tells me not to put my money on ancient Mayan astrology, however. So I continue to slug it out with you over the shape of the post-2012 world. ;)

Interesting interview with economist Prof. Steve Keen on BT Australia. The bit on carbon tax starts at about minute 15+:

http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2011/06/06/australian-and-us-economy-interviews/

*Anyway, rightly or wrongly, 'people' already feel guilty anyway. If a carbon tax takes away that guilt, then that's problem solved.*

I love it! Never mind if its going to actually make a difference,
as long as it makes people feel better, its worth paying. The
religious give to the church, they feel better about their chances
of going to heaven.

You are trying to sell snake oil here.

Actually, it is not I who is the one selling snake oil.

The original quote was that the carbon tax is a government conspiracy to make people feel guilty and then redeem them (to what end is unclear). Rather than saying "that's laughable", which will not persuade the conspiracy theorist, I ran with the idea. He might, after all, be right.

If in fact the conspiracy theory is correct, which it is not, then as an unintended side-benefit we end up with a good piece of policy and at the same time everyone is guilt-free. Smiles all round.

I'm finding it very interesting how those who support the carbon tax have expressed so much opinion without answering any of the original questions and whole point of this thread.

Can someone please explain how the pro-carbon carbon tax suppoters are justified in using deceitful visual images, e.g. steam, as evidence man is sending billowing clouds of carbon pollution into the atmosphere. Is this not propaganda? If there is a need to lie in order to get people to believe something is wrong with the message.

Has it dawned on the supporters how convenient the Climate Commisions report, which was paid for by the Labour Gov't, aligned so perfectly with Labour's need for proof? These kind of white wash reports get produced all the time by governments trying to sell particular ideas.

To this comment from Pastel Blue "Let's be intellectually honest. The boffins told us something we didn't want to hear, and we've lacked the courage to do anything but deny it."

You are almost correct but the wrong way around. The IPCC has been trying sell us a load us scientific BS and the courageous scientists that spoke out against it were demonised for expressing their doubts. The 'deniers' are the ones in the crowd that see the Emperor is naked.

Have a look at Bob Carter's excellent interpretation of the scientific climate statistics for the past several thousand years? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI

Poorer families get compensated for rise in the prices caused by Carbon Tax _ Why? So they can purchase products produced in polluting countries.

Er... Pastel Blue, the comment I made about the Maya Prediction was tounge in cheek & not meant to be taken seriously.

Where do I stand in the overall equation. Well;
Do I believe that the sea levels will rise. That's a given. The sea will rise regardless of what we do. So Yes.
Does man contribute to the level of Carbon? Yes. But at an absolute minimum.
Will reducing Mans contribution to the CO2 level make a difference World wide? Yes, but at an absolute minimum.
Will a carbon tax make a difference? Yes & No, It will increase Big Business profits & Yes, You & I will pay for their profits. It will not make a contribution to reducing the level of CO2. It will not make a difference to the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. So, No.

Having said all of that...
Am I in favour of poluting the Atmosphere. NO! But a steady phasing OUT of CO2 producing industry will be great for mankind.
Am I in favour of Alternate Energy sources. YES! But, a "steady" phasing IN of Green Energy will be great for mankind & Big Business.
The optimum word here, being, "STEADY." A win, win situation.

The sudden collapse of the Carbon Industry would be catrostropic for mankind, as tens of millions of people would be out of work instantly. What then? World War 111. A lose. lose situation.

I'm 100% all for alternative energy. Alternative energy such as solar power offers freedom, pay once and then free electricity from then on.

Freedom from the power company monopolies is why I advocate for solar energy, not the fear of carbon or climate change.

I will support any government initiatives from either party that makes it easier and cheaper for households to acquire solar energy. If the government is serious about promoting green energy why are they reducing the subsidy or putting time limits on the subsidy?

sbr108; If the government is serious about promoting green energy why are they reducing the subsidy or putting time limits on the subsidy?

Good Question. My contacts in Government won't answer that directly. I have asked them the same question & all I get is a rote long letter telling me what a marvelous job they are doing. As I tell them, "The longer the correspondence the more BS there is."

It's lobbying from the Power Companies that has reduced the subsidies. In yesterdays TV News the Power Companies said, "The increases were necesary. They were losing revenue because of the increase in the number of people using Solar Power."

Have I installed Solar Power? Yes I have. I've installed a 2.2 kW system. This is the minimum I would need to be Solar neutral (almost) I am a pensioner. I really could not afford the $5000 to put it on without drawing on the equity on my house loan. But with the rises coming I could not afford not too. (see rock & a hard place.)

I notice that most Solar Companies only offer Specials on two products. A 1.5 kW system, which will drop a Pensioner Bill by half or a 3 kW system which is beyond them. A 3 kW system would make a family (2 +2) power neutral. But at $7000 cash up front? Do you see the problem.

I have asked the Solar Companies why they don't have specials on 2.2-6 kW systems. I've never received a reply. So I suspect that there is a bit of collusion somewhere in the system.

sbr108,
Have you priced into your no pay claim the replacement of maintenance and batteries in a stand alone situation? $6,000 to $10,000 every 7 - 10 years. We on the farm installed a 32HP diesel generator as well for high energy useage during peak useage hours.

“When the oil runs out 1,000,000,000 people will starve.”

That is one way of helping to achieve a sustainable population
“Other countries have the tax, they will not trade with Australia.”

Maybe you could name them… and how much does them not trading with us cost us per annum…

I know of a list of countries supposedly “implementing” a carbon tax but none with one.

And if they were to fail to trade with us – so what? – they are likely to harm their own economies more than Australia’s

“The tax refund will exactly compensate the average consumer.”

If you believe that, you probably think that sheep, as well as pigs can fly

“Some of the carbon tax will subsidize solar water heaters.”

Terrific, if you don’t want a late evening shower – if it were such a good idea, a subsidy would not be needed

So 30 to 40 thousand people went on a rally… did you know, when fox hunting was an issue to be banned in UK… 250,000 rallied against the Blair governments banning plans

So, 7 – 10 times more people felt passionate enough about being allowed to hunt foxes as are passionate about a carbon tax…

And I bet nearly all the pro-carbon-tax zealots would admit hunting foxes was not one of their passions….

I dnot give a rats about how many loons want a carbon tax… what matter is do they have the numbers in an election

And the answer to that is

The do not …..

As one of the electors who will welcome the next election because it will mark the demise of the incumbent bunch of incompetent fruit loops, I likewise look forward to no carbon tax and the dissolution of the climate change commission on the basis it is a complete fraud

Philo, The new Solar systems are designed to be used without battries. I know where you are coming from though. My brother-in-law had the same system for the cattle station. Big heavy glass battries in the shed. You had to replace the Iron on the shed as well because the sulferic acid fumes rusted it out.

"Can anyone ... explain exactly how those tax dollars are going to be used?"
Pastel Blue; Hopefully they will be used to reduce your income tax to compensate you for your higher electricity bills.

Fat chance, Pastel. The money from the tax will go into consoladated revenue & will get lost in "the system" regardless of who is in power. Science research had it's funding cut this Budget, or did you not notice this. I too would like to see the money from the Carbon Tax, if & when we get one, kept seperate & go into Green Energy research, but it won't. High energy industry users have Government purse strings & they won't allow that to happen.

If Australia's contribution to World Pollution is 1% then reducing it by 20% reduces Australia to .8%. Now hang a bit on while I see if I getting excited... Hmmm no, not even getting a warm fuzzy feeling. This is just all to say to the World, "look at us." It's just show, nothing more. It'll make not one iota of difference.

Here's a list of the countries that have introduced a carbon tax: Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Switzerland, & Costa Rica.

The Netherlands and India have fuel consumption taxes.

sbr108 "Here's a list of the countries that have introduced a carbon tax: Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Switzerland, & Costa Rica."

If we were to stop trading with any on that list it would

1 make no difference to Australia

2 Likely to do damage to their economy

I guess in the madness of the asylum known as "Climate Politics",

some will claim success through pyrrhic victories

but for myself, I just do not see it.....

as for Countries using threats of economic sanctions to impose their will over other sovereign nations

I have no time for blackmail.

I do recall Southern Rhodesia during the years of UDI and the GB Gov reaction....

When I arrived in Salisbury, a week after the end of UDI... the impact it turned out of all those GB Government sanctions, thanks to alot of Japanese and other SE Asian Cars and other necessaries had been a great big Zero

Everybody is saying this or that about the carbon tax , will it or wont it reduce the CO2 and everybody is still bypassing the main issue, who pollutes?....ITS ALL OF US....so the real issue is , how many of us should we have on this planet? The best way to reduce the possibility of increased carbon or any other dangerous or earth destroying event is to look at the human race....how commited are you , what level of existance are you willing to survive at? It seems that as long as we have our big houses with solar hot water its all OK ,whats the time payback for producing the equipment 20,30,40 years pollution before you can say that your green!.....what a joke we are , were all hypocrites.

Posted by MickC; interesting thoughts. I suspect population is going to be a much bigger worry in 2050 than the climate.

Kate Blanchet this morning reiterated her support for the Carbon Tax claiming she wants to insure a future for her children. Give us a break Kate, the world is not going to disappear. And you are in a finacial position to ensure your children will be some of the least effected by whatever develops.

Humans have been very good at adjusting, evolving and inventing ways to keep up with the whatever unfolds. We cannot imagine what the world will be in 50 - 100 years but whatever it is there will be survivors, some properous and some doing it hard. Its been that way for 5000 years and there's no reason to expect it will ever change.

MickC “ITS ALL OF US....so the real issue is , how many of us should we have on this planet? The best way to reduce the possibility of increased carbon or any other dangerous or earth destroying event is to look at the human race....how commited are you , what level of existance are you willing to survive at?”

we are each an individual and I would suggest we can only answer as individuals

the dangers start when someone decides they will answer for someone else.

you later suggest we are all hypocrites

again something which you can only declare for yourself because

whilst I own several homes and live in the biggest of them, I do not consider myself a hypocrite for doing what I am freely entitled to do

your notion of “,whats the time payback for producing the equipment 20,30,40 years pollution before you can say that your green!.....”

is nonsense because I do not share your obsession with a zero-carbon footprint or any of the other Malthusian political rubbish promoted by the greens and other watermelon

imho the so called “skeptics” and “deniers” of Global warming are like that sane minority of lemmings who decided not to leap off the top of a cliff – and thus to the benefit of the species, became the gene pool from which future generations will be bred.

Send me your email and I will send you direction the cliff top… from where you can appease your sense of hypocrisy

sbr108 “We cannot imagine what the world will be in 50 - 100 years but whatever it is there will be survivors, some properous and some doing it hard. Its been that way for 5000 years and there's no reason to expect it will ever change”

indeed, hopefully it will never change… people work best when free to accept opportunities to improve their circumstances and the kept awake by the loss of rewards resulting from their indolence.

"Can someone please explain how the pro-carbon carbon tax suppoters are justified in using deceitful visual images, e.g. steam, as evidence man is sending billowing clouds of carbon pollution into the atmosphere. Is this not propaganda? If there is a need to lie in order to get people to believe something is wrong with the message."

This was seriously your most important point? I deliberately skipped it because it was so trivial.

I'm not sure what you're referring to. I doubt it's important. To me it sounds like a conventional TV (or even Youtube) practice of using a picture to illustrate every minor point. Steam or smoke is a visible analogy of any gaseous emission. I trust this is the end of this particular red herring.

I do however thank sbr108 for impliedly admitting that there are no better arguments against a carbon tax.

"Has it dawned on the supporters how convenient the Climate Commisions report, which was paid for by the Labour Gov't, aligned so perfectly with Labour's need for proof? These kind of white wash reports get produced all the time by governments trying to sell particular ideas."

Que? Are you proposing that Labor has a cunning plan to introduce a carbon tax solely it enjoys being evil in a crypto-socialist way? How do you then explain John Howard's ETS scheme?

Pastel Blue

That's the best you can come up with after two days of pondering?

Why don't you watch the Bob Carter video I suggested and tell us what's wrong with the scientific evidence against man-made global warming.

"Have a look at Bob Carter's excellent interpretation of the scientific climate statistics for the past several thousand years? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI"

Interesting, but not "excellent". The best bit was his intro, which really got my hopes up, but his rhetoric made it clear that he really did have an axe to grind. Some *geologist* from a minor, provincial university has a view on climatology. Good on him, I think that's great. However, I'm betting on the vast majority of *climatologists* being right. Also, even I could see what appears to be a rookie error in his reasoning.

I can also see the rookie error in *your* reasoning: That we should judge the science for ourselves. The majority of the population are simply not in a position to do so. To try to overwhelm the average citizen with a specious piece of scientific argument like that is unreasonable and, frankly, dishonest.

What John Q. Citizen has to do is weigh up the authority of the various experts. Just as he cannot judge whether smoking causes cancer, he can however judge for himself that:

1. It is perfectly plausible that smoking causes cancer - it just doesn't seem good for you;

2. The vast weight of medical opinion is that smoking does cause cancer, especially amongst oncologists, but even down to his local GP;

3. The existence of a few cranks - even among the ranks of the experts - does not diminish this consensus of experts. (I personally know a professor of *psychology* (*not* oncology) who is a heavy smoker and, totally coincidentally I'm sure, is trying to prove smoking doesn't cause cancer - you'd recommend his "excellent" video, would you?); and, most importantly

4. Quitting smoking may be unnecessary (if the minority is right and smoking doesn't cause cancer), but it surely can't hurt.

We are in exactly the same position with climate change.

This is what ordinary citizens really need to see:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ&feature=relmfu

"Poorer families get compensated for rise in the prices caused by Carbon Tax _ Why? So they can purchase products produced in polluting countries."

Nice piece of rhetoric, Philo, but unsound reasoning. Purchasing products produced in polluting places is only one of the many things they might do with that money.

"Er... Pastel Blue, the comment I made about the Maya Prediction was tounge in cheek & not meant to be taken seriously."

Yes I know. My reply was meant to be in the same spirit. Sorry if that wasn't obvious.

"Am I in favour of poluting the Atmosphere. NO! But a steady phasing OUT of CO2 producing industry will be great for mankind.
Am I in favour of Alternate Energy sources. YES! But, a "steady" phasing IN of Green Energy will be great for mankind & Big Business.
The optimum word here, being, "STEADY." A win, win situation.

The sudden collapse of the Carbon Industry would be catrostropic for mankind..."

I couldn't agree more.

"Freedom from the power company monopolies is why I advocate for solar energy, not the fear of carbon or climate change."

Hear, hear!

"I will support any government initiatives from either party that makes it easier and cheaper for households to acquire solar energy. If the government is serious about promoting green energy why are they reducing the subsidy or putting time limits on the subsidy?"

Fiscal responsibility? Pressure from the energy companies?

My question is: What is the solution?

MickC, you've hit the nail on the head.

"Everybody is saying this or that about the carbon tax , will it or wont it reduce the CO2 and everybody is still bypassing the main issue, who pollutes?....ITS ALL OF US...."

Population is perhaps the bigger issue. But how long will it take us to deal with population? At a guess, 100 years (3 generations) minimum? If the scientists are right, we don't have that much time.

Turning our attention to the smaller issue of carbon emissions, the fact that it's 'all of us' - i.e. the problem is systemic, means that a systemic solution is required, i.e. a carbon tax. By fiddling with the incentives in the system in order to put downward pressure on carbon-emitting consumption, we can begin a process of reducing the per head carbon emissions now.

Of course, a carbon tax is only part of the solution. There are other things, like encouraging the take-up of solar and wind energy, and the provision of public transport. And of course, population reduction.

Patel Blue said "Some *geologist* from a minor, provincial university has a view on climatology. Good on him, I think that's great. However, I'm betting on the vast majority of *climatologists* being right. Also, even I could see what appears to be a rookie error in his reasoning.

Does this mean the only scientists you will accept are the ones the government accepts. Just because a scientist comes from a smaller university doesn't negate his credibility. You can see a rookie error in his reasoning yet you cannot tell us what that was. By the way, what's your scientific credentials to judge which scientist is right or wrong? Correct me if I'm wrong but Cate Blanchett isn't a scientist either but I'll bet you accept her opinion

PB - "I can also see the rookie error in *your* reasoning: That we should judge the science for ourselves. The majority of the population are simply not in a position to do so. To try to overwhelm the average citizen with a specious piece of scientific argument like that is unreasonable and, frankly, dishonest."

Are you saying the people do not have the right to decide their fate? Are you also against the people being given the opportunity to vote on a carbon tax? Do you even believe in democracy? Maybe you would be in favour if the vote was sure to go your way.

Continuing on the above...

The people will eventually vote on this issue and those who impose an unjustifiable tax on us will be turfed out. Plan on it!

Interpreting your (Pastel Blue) comments... if government scientist with an obvious agenda produces a report, and the government spends millions of dollars selling it, the people should believe it. However, if a fairly unknown scientist expresses an alternative counter theory on YouTube, that's is being unreasonable and dishonest. It seems like in your view (and probably Labour's & the Greens) - the people should not be allowed to see counter arguments on this subject or decide for themselves what they believe is the correct way to go.

It's the Believers who are trying to silence those with opposing views and so far with the media's help, they have done a pretty good job to date. Unfortunately the truth leaked out and the people are expressing their distrust. Why would so many, like myself, who once believed in manmade global warming change their mind? It's because once we saw both sides of the evidence, the naturally occurring cycle makes sense. That doesn't mean we hate the planet but it does justify not supporting a tax or a government that has proven it cannot be trusted with our money.

We live is a democracy and we still have a choice to believe what we want... or would you prefer all the 'deniers' get locked up?

"Does this mean the only scientists you will accept... You can see a rookie error in his reasoning... By the way, what's your scientific credentials to judge which scientist is right or wrong? ...Cate Blanchett isn't a scientist either..."

It means I don't accept the word of one psychologist against the weight of opinion of the entire world of oncologists - not to mention the rest of the medical world - on a question of oncology. Although I myself am not an oncologist nor even a medical student. I was a smoker, but I quit on the advice of medical consensus, in spite of the ranting of deniers. I think most people would see this as sensible.

Just for example, Carter, when convenient for him, assumes a linear relationship between carbon emissions and current temperature.

See? You are already using the 'you-are-not-a-scientist' argument against me when I complain about a single marginal scientist who is ranting against the best advice of his colleagues.

I don't accept Cate Blanchett's *scientific* opinion. I may however be interested in her *political* opinion. Cate Blanchett is a professional communicator not a scientist. Climate scientists are nerds, not communicators. I see no reason why they shouldn't work together to communicate science to ordinary people.

"Are you saying the people do not have the right to decide their fate?..."

Just the opposite. I am saying that ordinary people have the right to decide for themselves and should not be intimidated by so-called 'experts' like Carter.

On voting: Of course I think they should be given an opportunity to vote on a carbon tax. I welcome it. And I am encouraging my fellow citizens to use the opportunity to do the right thing by themselves and not be led astray by rent-seekers and free-loaders and grouches and eccentrics who oppose the carbon tax.

@MickC: You might enjoy this:

http://www.postcarbon.org/Reader/PCReader-Ryerson-Population.pdf