I was watching an interview between two opposing ministers yesterday and the labor minister accused the lib minister of doing a back flip on the issue of a carbon tax.

His response was direct and to the point, he said, before Copenhargen I did support a price on carbon, however, once that was a flop and the rest of the developing world decided not to go there, so did i.

So, given this position, why did the government go there?

Abbotts idea is for the people to pay for the carbon tax, not the big polluters, it goes against conservative rules. Conservatism means the rich must get richer and the normal joe tags along as best they can.

Rechtub, no offense meant, honestly.
It is my honestly held view, your often unlikely ideas, are fueled by no understanding of the issue.
This is one of those times.
Copenhagen was a failure.
If we had a plan in place, to put on the table as an achieved out come, it is not sure it would have changed anything.
In truth, Liberalism, is , not unlike todays Labor party, a bit lost.
We Australians absorb American culture, look for it drink it all in as we do coke on a summers day.
Conservatives have lost touch, the very right faction, looks to American Republicanism, at its lowest and most dangerous point.
It sucked up the anti Carbon stand from a party gone bad.
My party, poorly led, not just by Gillard but factions, stalled in the name of self interest not the party's but factions, is lost too.
But its belief/intention is/was to set an example.
It never was or can be to on its own cut world emissions.
But just as sure as the detractors will flock here as blow flys do to road kill, we would be far from first.
Many country's are well in front of us.
I recommend those who as I do, think we should act, review the construction being thrown around to hide the rights current control of Liberalism.
This threads quote about Copenhagen is as believable as Somali pirates blaming foreign fishermen for making them criminals.

So, given this position, why did the government go there?
rehctub,
too bad we can't asks them that because they don't know.

I will leave you two to it.
Such failure to understand is secondary to the true crime.
Thinking you know better.

Belly,
We Do understand, you just don't like it that they can't pull the wool over some peoples' eyes.
Let me ask you this. If you were in a sinking boat that takes on 2000 litres an hour, would you continue bailing with a two-litre bucket or would you jump over to another sinking boat that only takes on 1000 litres an hour ? Meanwhile you're drifting towards a big waterfall.