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.