Hasbeen,

I can do math. Here's an example:

Total available fossil fuels = x
Annual consumption of fossil fuels = y
No. of years until fossil fuels depleted = x/y
The higher y is, the sooner we run out.

So, regardless of the effects on climate change etc, unless we really don't care about future generations of humans on this planet, we should be reducing fossil fuel consumption now.

ESPECIALLY if there is no replacement, as you claim. But it doesn't hurt to look for alternatives, which I think there are despite your no no no attitude.

A carbon tax will aid in both of these goals, reducing demand and motivating innovation.

I get it, hasbeen. You don't care about future generations, I do. That's where we differ.

Why is the alternative coalition policy far more expensive and why are they even considering spending anything on something that they now allege will have no effect - despite supporting the same scheme for many years (and even "a simple carbon tax" only about 12 months ago)?

Sounds like simple political opportunism to me.

TrashcanMan,
It is my understanding that the top 500 will simply pass on the costs, and some, no doubt.

And remember, one every important fact that everyone seems to be keen to dodge, is the fact that the only reason the top 500 pollute, is to service OUR needs, or the needs of the world.

It's a bit like puttin the cart before the horse if you ask me.

So please explain just how, by taxing the top 500, this will reduce emissions?

Now if you, or anyone for that matter, can explain this, then I may take a bit more notice of you and your supporters.

TCM:
There is little to be gained by having meaningful 'debate' with people who constantly think "windmills" generate power.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12685#219362

These same people call for others to "open their eyes" when they can't even open their own eyes.

For example: "please explain just how, by taxing the top 500, this will reduce emissions".

Ans: Stop relying on the 'lies' and deliberate distortions of Abbott, Bolt or Jones - for example

qanda
Ans: Stop relying on the 'lies' and deliberate distortions of Abbott, Bolt or Jones - for example

, that still doesn't answer my question,

For butcher: You could read the government’s ‘Clean Energy Plan’ - chapter 3 in particular;

http://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/clean-energy-future/securing-a-clean-energy-future/#content04

For anyone else concerned about the imposition of a ‘carbon price’: perhaps they too could visit the government’s Clean Energy Future web site;

http://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/

More credibility is gained in critique if you go to the primary source.

Most people don't - they prefer to get 'knowledge and wisdom' from media shock-jocks, bloggers and those pushing their own ideological agenda.