some are silly (or deceitfull) enough to believe that wind farms and solar power will give us the same standard of living as we have now. Our life expentancy has increased, standard of living increased and the man made climate gurus exposed as largely charlatans. And all this while we use 'dirty' energy. The PM would have a lot more respect if she stopped deceiving herself that somehow this new tax would be good for our country. Everyone knows it is to appease the human hating Greens who are full of idiotic ideology. We are moving backwards not forward with the worse Government Australia has seen. Where are the independants who promised open and accountable Government? How sleazy can one get? No wonder the public has warmed to the unpopular Mr Abbott. He was thought to be unelectable 2 years ago. Now except for a few blinded Labour diehards people know a bad Liberal Government would be far more competent than the current rabble.

Hasbeen, I agree with what was posted in The Age:

The carbon tax has nothing to do with reducing global warming but instead is about Australia transitioning to a lower carbon economy and to foster innovation and investment in alternative energy sources.

The carbon tax is meant to help reduce GHG emissions, but not for the simplistic reason of reducing global temperatures. Regardless, societies across the world really do need to move towards more sustainable energy sources and management practices.

The Australian government (not sure about the Opposition) and most (if not all) member states of the UNFCCC, and all scientific academies and institutions on the planet that have made their position on climate change known, and the vast majority of scientists that understand the science – know that we have to adapt to a warmer and wetter world – see research by Susan Soloman et al, and others.

The aim is to limit average global warming to 2 – 3 degrees C by 2100. The aim is NOT to reduce global warming (we can’t) as naysayers assert. It is a nuanced distinction you have difficulty in understanding, exemplified in your first post.

The point of the carbon tax is to reduce (the rate of increase in) GHG emissions. However, stabilisation and reduction in GHG emissions won’t happen for decades.

To answer some of your other questions, see here:

http://tinyurl.com/3ecflzo

Don't take it personal, it's a natural human defence mechanism.

Hasbeen you are far from alone.
But your my way or nothing opinions, are evidence man will be ruled by a one world government one day.
You, without evidence,, say those like me, who hold different views should wakeup.
Your certainty leaves no room, for the very real chance, it may be you who slumbers.
Our inability to even consider an insult free open debate on this subject.
Shouts we one day will have no right , no say, in directions others plan for us.

Sorry Bonmot, your talking past tense.

Have a look at the latest Nature. Yes, that one that has championed AGW for years. They have finally woken up & published the latest peer reviewed research that has totally, & finally debunked all the rubbish climate scientists have prattled on about for so long.

It ain't CO2. It ain't never been CO2. Co2 could give, perhaps 0.10 degrees increase in temperature this century. That from real scientists, the physicists

Now, please explain why we need to transition away from CO2 emitting fuels. If, as you folk believe, these fuels were all once plants, grown at a time of much greater CO2 in the atmosphere, it is probably a damn good idea to put it back where it came from.

Why would a low carbon economy be a good idea, unless you want less humans, we are after all a carbon life form?

If you can't handle that one, how about the stupidity of taxing our coal use, while increasing coal exports to Asia? How will that help AGW? Come on mate, get real, & try.

Belly I have no problem with any view you hold. I think you should try some more informative sites for your AGW info, but what you believe is your business, & good luck to you. What I do have a problem with is that many of you know this woman is killing your party. I know it, you know it, & thousands more know it.

That's what I want you all to wake up to. Mate, even if your right, & I'm wrong [unlikely as that may be] about AGW, everyone knows the tax is a con, & payment to Brown & his Greens. The resentment is going to continue to build, & all of you will be included, if you sit twiddling your thumbs as it happens.

For gods sake, go out & take the love of your life, your party, back to those who built it, & get rid of these half baked lawyers.

"redistribute poverty" Please explain, R0bert.

To others, as it stands, the tax will be a direct cost to major emitters. Exporting enterprises competing in world markets adversely affected by the CT will be compensated to the extent that they export (but not for domestically directed produce). The tax redistributes what it collects into this compensation as well as compensating those who earn no income and towards those earning income through the provision of large income tax cuts.

Why not stop focussing on the taxation aspect and look at the whole package. Otherwise you simply adopt the "big new tax" mantra and may as well just stay out of the debate.

Also, on the mining tax, what is the problem with Australians having a market-linked interest in extracting the best deal for the nation's mineral assets? Please, I am interested in a coherent reply instead of "proof by bald, paranoid assertion" of that some think passes for debate. If your argument is about states rights, let's hear that too.

PS Anthropologically caused climate change is real, the science is correct. Australia will have only little impact on this through a carbon tax, agreed, but it will establish itself as a nation that does not shirk its role as a contributor towards an attempt at a solution. We must move away from our reliance on fossil fuels as they run out anyway, so why not get started with a tax that is a positive addition to the general tax base as well as a step towards inevitable changes needed? After all the (bull)dust has settled, The CT and MT will be seen as great reforms, as was the GST, floating the dollar, and compulsory super.

bonmot..please re-read your own words

""The carbon tax has nothing to do
with reducing global warming""

now this

""The aim is to limit average global warming
to 2 – 3 degrees C by 2100.""

lol in the next breath

""The aim is NOT to reduce global warming..(we can’t)""'

lol

""It is a nuanced distinction
you have difficulty in understanding,""

cause its a circular bit of spin..!

is everyone asleep?