@Pirot: As a nation, we aren't likely to sacrifice growth as our mantra and, without industry fueled by low-polluting renewables and urban design alternatives, all the taxes in the world (accompanied by compensation) aren't going to change anything unless we cut our consumption and lower our standard of living.

Lexi has said this, but I'll put it in another way.

We aren't going to make the transition you describe overnight for a variety of reasons, not the least of which it is it physically impossible to go from where we are to low-polluting renewables instantaneously.

So it will be accomplished in little steps. Do you think a tax that does cut consumption in favour of moving towards sustainable living might be such a step? I do. The first and hardest step is admitting you have a problem. In implementing this tax, no matter how wishy-washy it might be, we have done that. It if survives the next election, then I'd imagine now we have admitted we have a problem the next step will involve doing something concrete about it.

Right now our pollies are doing an amazing job of ignoring population growth. That includes the Greens, who only have warm fuzzy motherhood statements listed on their web site as their "population policy". Hopefully the disconnect between growing your population at 1.6% per year through immigration and taxing yourself to cut total carbon emissions at the same time will become too hard to ignore.

@ rstuart:

I must say your comments over the past few days make a lot of sense, and across a range of subjects. Well done, keep it up - you're a model for the rest of us!

<< Unless we take this first step - nothing will be achieved. >>

Lexi, this is not really a first step. There have been others – the fuel excise, development of wind farms, subsidies for solar power, etc. It is more like a final step!

It was really time to gear it right up, but this carbon tax package has failed to do that.

If it was just another step on a well-formed path to renewable energy and a sustainable future, then fine. But it is not likely that further significant steps will follow. Big business won’t allow it. They’ll say that the deal is done and that’s it. And the Greens are happy with their wins for renewable energy and are not really likely to push for significant further measures, to any great extent.

And what are we going to achieve?

A 5% reduction on 2000 levels by 2020, at best. Well, whoopy-doo!

What has effectively been achieved here is a total win for the same old continuous-growth economic and business model. The government is now seen to be a bit green while at the same time effectively entrenching the ANTIGREEN, ANTISUSTAINABILITY paradigm.

The returns from ethical investments can often be insipid at best but then they are generally not why people choose to invest in such companies, it is often more a case of putting ones money where ones mouth is.

However was anyone else fortunate enough to be enjoying a 25% surge today in the share price of a certain geothermal company and a certain wave energy company?

One gets the feeling that when the Superannuation fund guys start getting interested then the landscape will change dramatically. There is just so much potential for R&d, jobs and growth in this sector, all that seems lacking are the funds. Watch this space.

Meanwhile a James Squire is called for tonight instead of the VB.

The thing that annoys be about the whole emissions thing is that we, ordinary Australians have already been consciously reducing our own personal carbon foot prints.

On the whole we think twice before driving somewhere if we don't have to, we no longer burn waste in our back yards and most of us don't cut trees down without considering the needs.

Another problem is that for any business to have to fund any increase, they need to make a return on that investment, so, if this tax adds say $2,000 to the running costs then they will most likely charge over and above their out of pockets as that's how business runs.

So that $2000 may end up being $3000 that is passed on as nobody wants to invest without making a return.

Once these increases are compounded down the line, it may have a huge effect to the bottom line price for the consumer.

Of cause the real issue is one of how will we meet the demands of the developing counties while at the same time cutting emissions

Ludwig

The modelling showed conclusively that the carbon tax and renewable program will result in the emissions increasing by 7.5% from today or 13% over 2000 figures. The 5% reduction over 2000 figures is based on buying $bns from other countries in "carbon credits".

The minor reductions in this country push emissions overseas, and do almost nothing for the globe or for the climate change in Australia.