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.

579
You're talking form your mid-brain, not your forebrain.

Carbon is not a pollutant you fool, it's the basis of all life on earth. That's like saying oxygen or water are "pollutants". The whole global warming mindset cannot be rationally defended, it is entirely an artefact of corrupt behaviour, so please don't bore us parroting the brainwashing you have swallowed.

Society doesn't get wealthier by stealing, whether or not it's legalised by the powers that be.

Mr Abbott lacks integrity on this issue. He know man made gw is cr p. He should of stuck by his original conviction and not jumped on the bandwagon. Thankfully the public have woken up thanks to the honest scientist and Abbott is not nearly as pig headed as Gillard who pushed this fraud on to the people by lying.

Individual, You force me to break my word.
Your silly question did not do it.
This is true,you over value your ability to see the issue, any issue.
Now that is not you fault, you can only work with what you have.
But your post history is contaminated by one line insults and attempts at questioning the IQ OF EVERY [explain IQ another time]one who has another point of view.
Sir/Madam consider a less confronting style, before engaging in verbal tennis first swap the table tennis bat for a tennis one.
Strings too if you can manage it.
Enjoy the thread .

579, that is typical under achiever statement.

You are quite happy to use something, just so long as someone else pays the bill.

Belly, please place this in your diary under, I'll informed Rehctub.

This is my prediction, The libs will put the bill up to repeal the tax and it will be rejected by the greens, sorry, the senet, then, they will put it up again, same deal.

The result being a DD election, so we can go back to scratch and chuck the whole lot out and start again.

So lets see who is the I'll informed one, hey!

Now back to the topic.
If you want to reduce emissions, you should tax those who cause them, us.

Give incentives for the people to find an alternative, then, charge the high users but REWARD those doing the right thing.

The result will be less power used, less power generated, less emissions created and NO TAX.

It's always better to reward people for doing the right thing, rather than forgetting them and simply punishing those who do the wrong thing.

The way they have it is that the tax is simply another expense the business has to fund and, like any expense, what goes is is not what comes out, because business has to make a profit, or at the very least, get their out of pocket expenses back.

That's why one billion going in will ne more like 1.4 B coming out.

If only the government knew how business worked, they would realize what a mess they are creating.

Meanwhile, we sit there as a nation with this very unfair disadvantage and hope and pray our jobs are secure.

Don't put your house on it!

The emissions are caused by us. That is a stupid blame to lay. Big business uses coal and oil, we have no choice but to bye the end products. Our carbon emissions are a bi product of the big polluters. To say that carbon is the basis of all life on earth, misses the point. We have to get of oil and coal. With out a penalty for polluting, it will never happen. The biggest polluters will pay the penalty, and as time goes on the pollution tax will increase.
You had better bye some insurance against power rises, by putting solar on your lid, and gradually increase your wattage as the years pass. Only the vein will get left behind.

Copenhagen and the Coalition's position on climate change are political.
The government's position, along with Academies of Science around the world, along with more than 90% of the world's climate scientists is a scientific position.
There's your difference.
Now, as to the two litre bucket analogy, yes, I would start bailing with it, so I could make a start, while, at the same time building a bigger bucket. My example of working away with a small bucket might even encourage others to bail with their two litre buckets. And if we ended up with enough two litre buckets at work, well who knows what we could achieve. Hey, we might even keep the boat afloat.
What I would not do is wait until I had a perfect bucket before I began bailing.
Anthony
www.observationpoint.com.au

579, I only know one person who, due to lack of mains supply, tried to depend on solar panels, who did not take a sledge hammer to them, either sooner or later. After spending much money & effort on the useless things, I don't blame them. Oh, that other one sold up & moved to a place with mains power, such was his frustration with them, & his dislike of diesel generators, the only thing that really works.

I will admit I did have a, quite expensive, solar panel system for keeping the battery on my tractor charged, & it worked well for the 17 months it lasted before dying.

I also have a wind generator, carefully stored on the bottom of the Corral Sea, about 60 miles north of Willis island, if you would like it. The whirring damn thing broke down once too often, so I gave it a float test, it didn't. A friend suggested I could have sold it for a reasonable amount of money, but I could not think of anyone I hated enough to even give it to.

That was of course before the days of lying conniving climate scientists, yes that's right, the ones who continue to make a fool of you Anthonyve, I'd love to give it to one of them.

Take electricity for example.. this is worth a squiz,if only it would happen just like it is being done in the USA. Average price for power
9.2 cents/KWH [ just returned from there last month - visited 5 states ]
AV power here T21 - 20.9 cents/KWH go figure.
"http://thadeus-sez.blogspot.com/2011/06/cheap-power-idea-everyone-wins.html"

Peter Hume's presumably rhetorical question , is water a pollutant, needs a sensible answer, which is, yes. Anything, no matter how 'natural', can be a pollutant if it is in the wrong place in the wrong quantities.
Just ask the residents of Bangkok.
Or to take another example: Tobacco smoke is the natural result of the natural process of burning the natural plant tobacco.
Is it a pollutant?
Er, yeah.
Anthony
www.observationpoint.com.au

Hasbeen I can not figure out what you are saying. Do you mean the solar panels don't produce power, or not enough power. Something is not right if it makes you put an axe through it.
Five 200 watt panels will give you a 1000 watts of power, a fridge will use 350 watts to run, the rest will go to the grid for credit, or batteries if you are not on the grid. As for saying wind generators don't work, you never had the battery back up to collect the power. I think you are talking about early versions of alt; power.

Carbon as an element is not the problem.

In this context, the word "Carbon" is being used as a generic term for ALL greenhouse gasses, of which carbon is but one.

The problem is the supposed outcome when when there is TOO MUCH carbon for the environment to deal with.

Not a difficult concept, surely.

Meanwhile it's interesting to see a subtle shift from outright denial of the existence of any climate change at all to an argument over how it can (or can't) be dealt with.

"""
Meanwhile it's interesting to see a subtle shift from outright denial of the existence of any climate change at all to an argument over how it can (or can't) be dealt with.
"""

I've never met a solitary person that denied the climate changes.
What's at argument here is whether man causes the climate to change and he undoubtedly does as does any living or non living object on this planet, it's physics and no one denies it. So by how much does man change the climate and by how much can man maintain a fictitious stable climate by implementing a carbon tax?

It seems no one can answer these simple questions, most of all the frauds that want our labour!

579, I just cant get my head around your logic.

Of we cut back on our usage, the big poluters would not produce the power that we have cut, hence, w reduce emissions without having a tax on big business.

Anthon, you have hit the nail on the head when you say, THE WORLD. Not Australia, but the world.

Now, if it were the world that was introducing this tax, well that would be a whole different ball game, but they are not, and that's the cruts of the matter.

Also, tabbacco it's self is quite harmless. It's the additives that also burn that cause the problems.
Raw Mustard, what's also the problem is that we, one of the smallest emitters are trying almost single handed to solve a global prolem while the large emitters are doing very little.

I have no problem admitting there is some concern. I do have a problem trying to fix it on our own.

And just remember, if this t costs us what little manufacturing w have left, what then?

You may be happy to take that gamble, but I'm not.

Bring on the next election!

Hi rehctub,
I do have some sympathy with much of what you say, but this does confuse me.
You are unwilling to gamble on a possible negative impact on jobs, (although i would argue that pricing carbon will have a net effect of creating jobs), yet you seem to be sanguine about gambling with the entire planet.
Look, somebody has to go first. I think that, as the highest per capita polluters in the world, it should be us.
I believe that we will be one of the catalysts that will move the entire world to action.
I believe we should lead on this issue.
A great many movements that changed history began with a minority.
Take William Wilberforce. He looked at slavery and decided it was wrong. He was only one man, yet he took a stand that changed the course of history by eventually forcing England to abolish slavery.
And here's the thing. Powerful commercial forces that opposed him, that wanted slavery to continue, claimed that abolition would destroy the English economy.
In fact the exact reverse happened.
I believe in doing what is right, not what is perceived to be expedient, even if it is difficult.
I think you probably do too.
Cheers,
Anthony
Www.observationpoint.com.au

Anthonyve,

I'm not a supporter of the AGW theory but you make a nice point about standing up for what you think is right, even against great odds (with a good example). I cannot fault your principles.

However, my prediction is that no-one will care less what Australia does or doesn't do in respect of a carbon tax, so it will be like relieving yourself in a wetsuit - you feel nice and warm but no-one else notices. So please go and piss in your own wetsuit and leave mine alone.

In an earlier post, you suggested that 90% of the climate scientists believed in AGW (or words to that effect). I would suggest to you that this is equivalent to saying that 90% of practicing Christians (insert religion of choice) believe in God (insert deity of choice).

The AGW analogy to religion is quite strong - come up with an idea, work tirelessly to prove it is correct, create esoteric explanations for gaps in the theory, deny all opposition (plausible or otherwise) and then brand all opponents as heretics. Get other like-minded devotees to confirm that your version of the truth is right. Then, expect everyone to pay handsomely for the privilege of living with your concept. Oh, and don't forget the power vested in a small select group ...

Hmmm – actually that analogy could be applied to the so-called climate deniers too!

Somewhere in the middle there must be a rational argument ...

Anthonyve, Rehctub here.

I don't deny there is a problem, but why the tax?

Most of us have made huge efforts to reduce our emissions in the past decade, nome more so than in the past few years, so in essense, we are already reducing the effects of carbon.

My understanding is that the tax is simply something that they pay and, as long a they pay the tax they can continue to omit, am I right?

Now the other real issue is cost.

It would be far to say that 90% of those advising on this are on pretty good money and, they don't rely on 100% of thier income to live, however, despite the fact that the government says the masses will be compensated, do you honestly think they will not be out of pocket?

After all, this government has not go one thing right yet, so what makes you think they will this time around?

The fact of the matter is that if you reward people for using less carbon producing energy, they will use less, which means the producers generate less, which means we have the same net effect, which by the way is still next to nothing and, ... NO TAX!

And just remember, if one job is lost from this great new tax, then the likes of you are to blame.

So tell me, if this occurrs, will you and your supporters give an assurance that you will dip into your pocket and help support those who have been made to suffer?

Only if that happens!

you reward people for producing less carbon, where do these rewards come from. You penalize people for producing to much carbon. Only the big polluters will pay the tax. If you can not see the logic in that you are missing something serious. Hasbeen can't see how solar panels work, and rectub wants the people to pay for the polluters pollution. Your argument is wholly political, and not in the best interests of the people. The way of the liberal is for the rich to get richer, and the normal joe to tag along.

Change of mind is one thing we all share as people;however to turn your back on scientific evidence is stupidity and T A has doen so to scare and freighten us. He wants power but to gain this via a lie is not the right method. 'what a fraud of a person he is!'

579, why do large poluters pollute?

Th answer is simple, to provide a service for us.

So, if we reduce our usage, which means the big polluters will pollute less, won't that have the same effect but without the tax?

Now of you think that is not logical, please explain why?

Can you explain what we are supposed to reduce. Then i may be able to answer your question.

Hi rehctub,
Re your question, 'why do big polluters pollute?', i would offer another reason: because it's cheaper than not polluting.
Directors and senior executives are, by law, required to act in their shareholders' best financial interest. Therefore, if polluting is cheaper than not polluting, then that is what they will do.
In fact, i have been in management meetings where illegal actions were contemplated because the cost of a fine was such that if the company got away with an action for x months, then they would make a profit even if they were caught and had to pay the fine.
The accountant was perfectly relaxed doing the break even calculation. The ethics of the action were never even mentioned, only the profit impact.
If polluting is the cheapest option, then pollute they will.
Cheers,
Anthony
Www.observationpoint.com.au

579, simply by better planning of trips via car is one way, or, making sure the kids turn their lights off is another, then there are things like second fridges which are often not needed all the time, electrical items left on stand by.

All of these are quite common and can save on power.

Anth, I hear what you say however, power is only ever generated to suit the demand an, it stands to reason that if consumption is reduced, so to is production.

In any case most large companies are already much more efficient than they were ten years ago.

I know it's a hard one, bu why the tax, is all I ask.

The tax is there as an incentive to get off oil and coal or clean it up. Your power saving measures would be seen as penny pinching, xmas lights, street lights, water fountains, and trams running to pick up two passengers, and specially when the missus wants to use the clothes drier. Abbotts way is for the little man to pay for the big mans clean up. The tax is not going to cause any hardship unless you are one of the multy million $ company's that pollute. This is a very narrow based tax, with compensation for any add on costs to the consumer.

Hi Rehctub,
Hmmm, how to explain...
Think of it this way. First, it's not a tax. An impost that is paid by only a few hundred entities out of an entire nation cannot be called a tax.
Unless, of course, you are a ruthless, dishonest opposition leader who understands the power of memes.
You wouldn't call a speeding fine a tax, would you. The only people who pay a speeding fine are those who exceed a defined limit of behaviour. If everybody modified their behaviour and no one sped, (Speeded?), nobody would pay the fine.
Likewise, with carbon pricing. If nobody emmitted above certain levels of CO2, then nobody would pay the carbon price. However, if a company chooses to over emit (Speed), then they pay the fine, (Carbon price).
It's much easier to grasp once one accepts the carbon pricing is only a 'tax' in the minds of the politically expedient.
Here's another analogy. If a waste disposal company dumped toxic waste into a river, you wouldn't have a problem with charging that company to clean up the mess, would you. I certainly wouldn't.
All that a carbon price does is to make the people dumping pollutants into our atmospherepay to clean it up, via carbon pricing, or, as Abbott refers to it, via a 'carbon tax'.
The point is that we taxpayers are already paying for this pollution. For example, the rising inceidence of asthma and other breathing disorders is linked to carbon pollution. Sufferers get treatment and medication subsidised by you and me.
The thing to keep in mind is that we wouldn't tolerate wealthy companies polluting in other ways, so why on earth would we let them pollute with carbon emmissions? Right now, they're making the profits while we taxpayers pay for the clean up.
Maybe that's not a great explanation, but it's why I come down well and truly on the side of carbon pricing.
Hope it helps.
Cheers,
Anthony
www.observationpoint.com.au

Well Anthin and 579, I hope your are right, as, although I don't share your views I do know that our economy is such that with out exports we will be doomed.

I guess we will agree to disagree and watch this space.

I guess time will tell.
And it will probably turn out that we're all a bit right.
An early night for me, so I'll say goodnight all.
And thanks for an interesting and ejoyable discussion.
Cheers,
Anthony
www.observationpoint.com.au

Anthonyve,

Unless I am very much mistaken, the revenue from the carbon tax goes to the state. This means that it complies with the dictionary definition of a tax. One does not need to be a member of the opposition to call it a tax only literate.

Hi Shadow Minister,
Two points:
First, in order to make a point, it's not necessary to be offensive, even by inferrence.
Second, whilst you are technically correct, the word 'tax' is usually used to refer to a broadly applied impost.
That's why we don't refer to a speeding fine as a speeding tax.
The carbon price will only apply to a few entities who behave in a certain way, i.e. pollute.
If they cease to behave in that way, then they wouldn't pay.
I hope that helps to clarify the point I was trying to make.
Cheers,
Anthony
www.observationpoint.com.au

Anthony, Julia Gillars herself called it a carbon tax.

Now I hope you are prepared for the outcome, should these large poluters stop polluting, because, the only reason they pollute is to provide for our needs.

For every action, there is a reaction and in this case it could mean we go back to the 80's and have to deal with power rationing.

Now I don't think that will happen as the tax will be passed on,,but by your logic it could.

Hi rehctub,
Yeah, good point.
I was thinking about all this and it occurred to me that whichever of us is right, the outcome probably won't be real flash.
I certainly admit that the scenarios you suggest are possible and worrying.
Maybe a price on carbon is a mistake, but I just can't see how else we'll get change without some pressure on polluters' hip pocket nerves.
And I just hate the idea of sitting on our hands while our grandkids' planet gets harmed.
Guess we'll just have to wait and see.
Cheers,
Anthony
www.observationpoint.com.au

Touche Anthonyve in support of 579.

Isn't rationality a great weapon in debate.

I'm a bit alarmed by the lack of understanding of the mechanism of the carbon tax / ETS in this thread.

It seems Labor, the Greens, economists, the media and educators have some work to do. It's no wonder so many in the general public are against it, they clearly just don't really get how it works.

I am even more alarmed that there are people here, who expect to be taken seriously, still making the "carbon dioxide is not pollution" argument. Talk about conceptual deficit.

Trashy I can't believe that any, even half educated, person could possibly still believe that global warming is a fact & CO2 is a problem.

This of course is excepting the academic community who have shown a remarkable ability to believe anything that will keep the gravy train on the rails, producing that beautiful cash.

Anthonyve,

Your logic is seriously faulty:

"the word 'tax' is usually used to refer to a broadly applied impost.
That's why we don't refer to a speeding fine as a speeding tax." Would thus not apply to the MRRT or mining resources rent tax etc. A speeding fine is paid for breaking a criminal law, which is why it is called a fine.

I understand that you want to redefine the English Language so that Julia Gillard didn't lie, but the English dictionary, and most of the public agree that the carbon tax is a tax.

Secondly, I agree that something needs to be done, but the carbon tax without reciprocal action in the rest of the world is bad policy, as it simply exports the carbon emissions, and the net emission change is zero.

Anthony, there are two real issues I see in all this.

One, a carbon tax, call it what you like, is simply a fee to pollute.

Secondly, despite the fact that we are the highest per capita polluter, this means nothing as th real issue is what percentage of the global contribution we contribute.

Now as for the tax, an ETS would have been a far better option as the polluters would have to first buy credits before they can pollute.

However, once again the most important part of any climate change actions is that it is tackled globally.

Otherwise we are simply being further disadvantaged, as we already suffer from isolation and higher wages than our competitors.

All this government is doing is trying to create ways to plug the extremely large hole they have caused in our bank account. And that waste and mismanagement continues as we speak, with pokie reform and the mining tax.

This government may well go down in history as being the only government that didnt get one thing right.

The carbon tax is a tax, but it is specifically targeted, If you don't pollute you don't pay the tax. it is optional. Gst doesn't give you that option. You are splitting straws saying such things, people are above that level of intelligence., well most. What has that got to do with abbott changing his mind. To him it is crap. In case it is not crap we had better start doing something. Besides we have to get off coal and oil. So pull ya ed in and get with it.

Ok 579, you say pull our heads in and get with it.

Well, coal and oil have been the blood and the mining industry, the heart of our economy.

Even when times were tough for them, they still went out on a limb and explored, in fact, spent billions and created thousands of jobs in t prospect of finding a reliable mineral/oil deposit.

It is suggested that as many as 19 out of 20 projects failed, that equates to a 5% success rate, not to good hey!

The fact remains, that until we find an affordable alternative we have to continue to rely on them for our very existence, unless of cause you live under a rock somewhere, but I doubt that.G

I see you as one who gets up in the morning, gputs the jug on and enjoys a coffee or tea, much like the 99.9% of us.

Alternatively, you may have solar, which by the way, was subsidized by us, the tax payer, but hey, those who think like you are happy to try things, so long as someone else foots the bill.

I would also assume that you will continue with your current lifestyle as it will be the generators who pay your way, once again, not you, the user.

So in essense, we need them, but unfortunately, they don't need us. They would prefer to be here, but the reality is that if enough hurdles ar put in their way, they will leave.

So as usual, the government had put the cart before the horse, as they have no alternative yet.

It seems to be thier trend, given the latest on the pokie reform debate from one of their most senior members, Simon Creen.

He says, gets the facts first, then act.

Maybe he should be leader.

When abbott gets the ass from his party, you will need an explanation of what he done wrong.

Rehctub there is one major difference.

All the European schemes gave 90% of the permits to those who emitted CO2. Probably an admission that the pollies knew the whole thing was just a vote buying exercise from the dumb greenies, & a pay out to the finance sector, who's bonuses had got a bit thin, by their standards.

Germany even then, excepted much of it's coal fired power from the scheme.

The fact that it was then ripped off for billions showed just how dumb were the bureaucrats running the show, or perhaps how smart they were devising a system they could rip off themselves, without being caught.

God I'm sick of this bull sh1t.

Rehctub, that last sentence was not directed at you.

Sorry, it was only when I reread the post I realised it looked as if it was.

Are has been, you will go a long way to offend me.

I think we had best get back to the topic.

The fact remains the libs changed thier view on the carbon tax about the same time as the rest of the world, at the Copenhagen convention.

Why didn't Julia?

The premise of your argument false Rehctub. There has been greater world agreement about action regarding climate change since Copenhagen. China for example is now leading the world in renewables and already, population control. Renewable energy since Copenhagen.

Tony Abbott's team as you call it didn't really change their mind with the world, the world changed their mind about Australia's maturity on the world stage and probably consider us a bunch of flat earthers if local opinion polls are being taken into account internationally.

Ironically and at the same time, Kevin Rudd himself has done lots to restore our International relevance, working independently of US approval for our current Foreign Policy positions, presumably with the direction and approval of the PM and Cabinet.

Another tick for the Gillard Govt in my book in year of results despite an avalanche of negative rhetoric and politic. A bit like the climate change debate in Australia, were still debating the skeptics, in the face of international consensus about the need for action. This a far more accurate picture Rehctub.

The only 2 important countries not co-operating on climate change left, are Australia and the US, and the Gillard Govt is about to change that . It's about time.

Well, the world didn't change it's mind on carbon pricing at Copenhagen. That is just a misleading statement. A stall in a global agreement hasn't seen the rest of the world backflipping on policy. The EU, China, NZ, Japan, India, are all "moving forward". I guess that is what Gillard promised as well!

And that's right hasbeen, there's a global conspiracy involving all of the world's scientific organizations. They're all in on it, From NASA to the CSIRO. Every university has jumped on board too. After all, it worked with the moon landing hoax so they thought they'd scam us all again.

You know Thinker, fooling others can sometimes be profitable, but fooling yourself,---never!

"The EU, China, NZ, Japan, India, are all "moving forward". I guess that is what Gillard promised as well"

The EU is static, the US, Canada, China, India and the rest of the world are doing just about nothing, and Juliar promised no carbon tax.

After Kyoto, Copenhagen was expected to produce a global agreement of sorts to supersede Kyoto. Nothing was achieved at all, and when the Kyoto protocol expires in 2012, there will be no international agreement whatsoever. Copenhagen was in effect a giant step backwards.

I know most of you don't run a business, so you don't understand the fundamentals.

You are simply the wheels of a bus, you hop on in the morning and hop off at night and forget about the bus until the next day.

Running the country will require growing the economy to sustain the population growth and, unless you are blind, you will realize that it will be impossible to meet that demand, plus the global demands we rely on, while cutting emissions.

In fact, the only way we can cut emissions will be via cleaner energy and the Tech is simply not there and won't be in the coming years, at least from an affordable, proven source.

The other huge problem we face is becoming anti competitive.

This will happen as one, as jobs start to fade, or at least hours, unions will call for pay rises and two, other countries will have the no tax advantage.

This is a global issue and we must not tackle it alone or it will cost us dearly.

Why else do you think the rest of the world went cold!

Hi rehctub,
It seems to me that one of the thinking patterns i see quite a bit among climate action opposers is that somehow you all have access to knowledge and thinking ability that the rest of us don't.
Example is your assertion that we don't run businesses and so don'tunderstand the fundamentals.
I would, only by way of corrective response, point out that before I retired to write full time, i was MD of Fasco Motors Thailand, annual revenues $A75M, employees 370
Before that GM of Fasco Australia, annual revenues $45M, employees 260+-.
I have been a GM of substantial manufacturing businesses in China, Hong Kong, Thailand and Australia.
I was. Global executive with ABB for ten years, before that 20 years in the military serving in Australia and in SE Asia. In the course of my professional career i have visited 32 countries.
So please do not assume that Because I, and others, disagree with you, we lack some knowledge that you have.
With the above experience and after a quite detailed analysis of data, (not political claims), I, a) am convinced that urgent, concerted action is needed to save our planet, b) believe that the Carbon tax is an essential and sensible first step for Australia, and c) that it will set the Australian economy up for a bright future by leading to significant job creation.
Cheers,
Anthony
www.observationpoint.com.au

Anthony,

Perhaps then you could enlighten us as to what the net global effect on emissions will be if
-the rest of the world does not move, providing a cheaper alternative for our manufactured goods,
-and given that the average cost of carbon in Australia is about 10x that of anywhere else in the world, and still our emissions are projected to grow by 7.5%

Secondly given the GFC, and the results of Spain's adventure with alternative energy subsidised by the consumer that showed that for every job created in clean energy, 4 were lost in traditional industry, how can you claim that this will guarantee a bright future?

Hi Shadow Minister,
Certainly.
The world will absolutely fall in behind global warming action within the next couple of years. Why? because it's real and cannot be ignored much longer. (I've just posted a new thread reporting that Professor Richard Muller at Berkeley, once a leading Climate sceptic, has now changed his mind after one of the most thorough studies of available data in history).
So, those countries that move early and quickly will have investment going on in alternatives and mitigation strategies, and therefore can become leaders in what will be the biggest industry in the world in coming decades.
Second, the symbolic value of Australia, the world's worst per capita polluter, taking action cannot be underestimated. It will give others, even the dinosaurs in the US Republican primaries pause for thought.
And as for Australia taking a lead, many countries are already way ahead of us. For example, South Korea,led by a conservative government, has set highly aggressive emissions reduction targets and is confident that this will not harm its economy. Indeed, the SK Prime Minister is on record as saying he is confident that it will help the South Korean economy in coming years. And by the way, SK manufacturing workers are more highly paid than Australian workers on average.
The only thing to worry about is how much harder saving the world is becoming the longer we dither.
Cheers,
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Anthin, firstly, I am not a climate change denier, never have been, as there is no possible way that what we pump int the air is not causing am, however, had you raised this argument twenty years ago, I would tend to agree, but the truth is that most companies, even individuals are far more aware of the environment and that's a fact that can't be disputed.

I note point a of your post suggests concerted action, boy I wish I had thought of that.

So you have actually shot your own argument in the foot as you yourself acknowledge that we alone can't fix the problem and, this we ar the largest omitted has hair on it as well. It's a bit like a bradbdry, yes he got a gold, but only because everyone else fell over.

It's the amount that is produced that matter, not the number it take to produce the amount.

Finally, you have a very impressive CV, one can only assume your retired very old, or, you skipped prep school and went straight to work! Especially considering the army has age limits in place.

Hi rehctub,
It wasn't my intention to explore my personal background, only to refute your suggeestion that the rest of us are incapable of understanding because we - according to you - have no busines background.
So, here are the details:
Joined the RAAF aged 19 in 1967;
Left the RAAF in 1988 and joined ABB, ran various operations, including in China and Hongkong until I left ABB in 1996 to join the British company Invensys which then owned, inter alia, Fasco worldwide. Ran various business units including in Australia and Thailand until I left the corporate world in 2006.
The point is that this is not about me, I was simply responding to your unfounded assertion.
Now, as to you other questions, if you go back over my and various other responses throughout this thread you will find the answers.
Cheers,
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Anthon, while I respect the fact that you have worked hard and achieved much, I can assure you there is no job in the world that carries the preasure that goes with owning a business these days, because, each day you enter the office you hang your keys on the wall as security.

Now that was fine when the rewards were there, but I am afraid those days are mostly a memory for many.

Compliance and IR laws have seen to that.

I have one year left and I can assure you, that's it for me as despite the fact that I love what I do, I just no longer have the urge to own a business, run one perhaps, but not on one, and that's sad.

If I had been that lib minister, I would have said;
"When conditions change I change my mind, what do you do ?"

Almost all the comments here are based on the expectation that global
warming will cause us much trouble or they are based on worries that
actions against AGW will drive us to the wall.

Unfortunately what both sides are worrying about is irrelevant.
As you can not help but be aware of is the financial grind that the US,
Europe and Japan have got themselves into means that we are now into
an era of zero growth. China has contracted for or already sucked up
all the energy the US & Europe needed to generate the GDP they needed
to repay their loans and interest.
Extra energy is required to generate GDP each year, but because of the
tightness of the energy market the price has risen so high it has
eaten the GDP they expected.

So forget global warming it is the least of our worries, what you
need to start campaigning on is population, energy and food production.

Anthony,

"The world will absolutely fall in behind global warming action within the next couple of years. Why? because it's real and cannot be ignored much longer."

Wanna bet? They ignored it at Copenhagen.

No one has as high a tax as Australia nor are they planning to. South Korea, has no carbon tax and is only mulling an ETS. They have set a "target" of 30% below business as usual. Which considering that their emissions doubled from 1990 to 2005 is not a reduction at all.

Sorry, but Australia is way out ahead on its own.

Can you provide more than hope and wishful thinking?

Hi Shadow Minister,
Yes. I have patience, because the argument, and history, are coming to me.
Because, and this is what many ignore in this debate, if you win, then the world is irreparably damaged within a few generations.
I would far rather be fighting my fight than yours.
Cheers,
Anthony
http://ww.observationpoint.com.au

Succinctly put, Anthonyve.

Especially the "I would far rather be fighting my fight than yours", bit.

Anthony,

It is nice to dream. And probably in a decade the rest of the world might move. In the interim, the Australian economy will suffer, and there will be no change in global emissions.

Reality sucks.

SM, "the Australian economy will suffer".

I remember similar fears based on unfounded assumptions about the GST, the carbon tax being a smaller impost.

Economists, Treasury, etc seem to be disagreeing with your assumption.

However, we will see how it pans out.

See Shadow Minister, there you go again.
You make a couple of wild predictions, (the economy will suffer, the world will do nothing...) but you phrase them as facts, all the while of course without a shred of evidence to back up your claim.
And you criticise me for believing what science cautiouly states based on evidence, all the while qualifying the degree of certainty with which it is known.
Well, I will give you this. Your nothing if not inconsistent.
If you're going to attack science, and those who defend its work, do you not think you should perhaps apply the same standards to your own position?
Just sayin'.
Cheers,
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Trash,

The economists etc all agree that it will damage the economy. What they are trying to say is that it won't be so bad. The only modelling that treasury has done, assumes that everyone else will have a price on carbon, and even then they refuse to release the model itself.

For many industries already operating on razor thin profit margins, this will be the end.

The GST was based on final costs on locally and imported goods, where as the carbon tax will apply almost exclusively to locally produced goods. Those from China and India where there is no carbon tax will squeeze out local producers.