Lucifer, Did you try that latest Nature. If not, Why not, if you want to make dogmatic statements, you should be up with the latest.

I've got a bridge for you too. It is the same one, but you sound an easy mark.

If this government wants or reckons it needs more money from us, why don't they be open and honest and raise it by upping the GST or income tax?

But no, They have to try and con us by making out it is for the benefit of the enviroment and they are saving the planet. Con me once and your a crook, con me twice and I'm an idiot.

The scientist in the UK and USA showed us that AGW was a con as they were fiddling the figures and now the wheels have fallen off their big band waggon. They had it good for a long time.

Funny how some people have taken AGW on as a new religion.

One Under God

You obviously haven't read Solomon (not the biblical one), or have understood the supporting science that even real sceptics acknowledge.

I certainly am not surprised by your religious or ideological stance - it is not uncommon, Andrew Bolt has the same difficulty.

Hasbeen,

What latest Nature piece, this one published yesterday?

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110907/full/477148a.html

You haven't been specific so it is impossible to respond. Could it be a case of:

http://tinyurl.com/3ecflzo

For example: coal mines are expanding, number of coal loaders are being added to, and coal exports are increasing - as you say. So why are you blind, dumb and deaf to Tony Abbott touring Australia telling Australians the Government is about to shut down the coal industry?

Hasbeen,have looked for it, or at least an abstract, online (1 Sept and 8 Sept). Have you a url?
What's this "bridge" you want to give me? Apart from domestic blindness I may be suffering "cultural deficiency syndrome" (possibly age related). Is it something to do with selling the Brooklyn Bridge again? Sorry, I'm grasping.

well i should say here we go again, however, it is becomming quite obvious ther are less puppets out there offering thier loyal unconditional support for this fool and her party.

i say this as thier way of voicing thier opinion is to not offer an opinion.

i doubt you will find many disagreeing with you on is one, as its. no brainer.

Luciferase, assuming the low income earners are fully compensated (a proposition I'm pretty sceptical about) my guess is that all or almost all of the cost will land in the laps of middle income wage earners and low margin self employed. Those who can't just jack up their prices, they are not on the boards of the companies they work for so they can't grant themselves a wage rise. They can't afford the team of accountants to work out how to make a profit from the tax.

They may still get a small offset from taxpayers via the government but will wear the full brunt of increased prices. Not just the direct price increases from the emitters but the cost increases from every one else who thinks that they can get away with raising prices/fees to cover the increased costs.

Unless you think that the big players will absorb the extra costs rather than passing them on then the costs can only get pushed down to those who can't push them down further.

Wealth isn't redistributed, the poor are at best a little better off (even in the most optimistic scenario's) but the middle income earners are a lot worse off. Some rich people people will find ways to profit from it but mostly it's poverty that's redistributed not wealth.

Someone has to pay for all of this including all of the money that's not being used to compensate anybody and if the existing poor are being compensated guess who it's likely to be.

R0bert