Bazz,

You may be right about a change of policy. It would at least be more in line with their actual beliefs and bolster their integrity going into an election. However, going into an election with no climate change policy is going to lose some of their current support. Despite what is posited in this forum, there is still a significant body of support in the community for action on climate change.

I'm a bit puzzled as to why you think a contracting economy would mean they would have no money to spend. A government needs to increase spending to stimulate the economy in that scenario, even if it means increased govt debt. A lesson learned from mistakes made leading into the Great Depression.

TrashcanMan

His policy therefore is to tackle something that he believes doesn't exist?

Wow... It says so much about him. No surprises though.

Yes its one thing we can agree on. He should of learnt from all the big noters who signed the Kyoto agreement knowing they had no intention of keeping their word. Like most Greens they were far more interested in symbolism and social manipulation than helping the environmment or poor countries. It is certainly something that both Gillard and Abbott have in common that they have committed to something neither will achieve. At least Abbott is not going to drive business's to the wall for absolutely no beneficial outcome but to suck up to the UN. No wonder Rudd is still fuming knowing that Gillard advised him to drop the tax as she sniffed the change in the electorate.

Trashcan man;
I think you will find this interesting.

http://tinyurl.com/5us9z58

There seems to be no chance of an agreement at Durban.
The article explains it better than I can and it is on a pro AGW site.
It shows that it is totally useless for us to implement any sort of
CO2 policy. China and India wants the developed countries to carry all
the burden, but even if we did it would not do the job.
For that reason alone anti CO2 legislation will fail.

In a contracting economy the cost of unemployment benefits will rise
very significantly and tax returns will fall as well.
Governments will have falling revenue from all sources.
This what happens after peak oil. Growth is needed to finance projects
and the GDP will have been eaten by the rising cost of energy.
Sure the government can print money or borrow it as they have been
doing, but to do that you need energy to go along with it.

This where the US and the Europeans, except Germany, got themselves
into trouble. Do you suggest we follow the same path ?

In the longer term when we experience rapidly rising oil prices there
will be nothing to be done than hang on tight.

Trashcan man you will make no ground here.
The thread started with forlorn hope Abbott's faults would, well not sure what was wanted.
If you think about it, surely Australia knows his faults.
Us defending Gillards is a waste of time.
And if we do, we should stop highlighting Abbott's faults.
Or be considered as uninformed as just some,who you tangle with, are.

Bazz,

If only you could see, you're making a great argument FOR a carbon tax to be introduced.

Abbott's plan for climate change of course will be ineffective, more expensive and just see a lot of money wasted by organisations taking advantage in exactly the same way the school hall program is criticised now.

TrashcanMan, have you by ant chance been studding economic principles recently, in Grease?

From your suggestions that the current government is doing a good job, & what a government should do in a down turn, I must assume you are getting your economic theories from there, or perhaps the eastern communist block, before the collapse.