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.