SPQR,

You're on to something with your comment that the Heartland Institute is a little "slow".

I'd say they're more than a little "slow" - they're downright "moronic".

I shall try again...

In most industrialised democracies, "wedge politics" -
deliberately creating a division between sectoral
interests - is the name of the game.

Hence interest group self-interest and antagonism
between citizens permeates policy making. The
much-touted notion in liberal democracies that
governments govern for all, is not believed by
significant numbers of voters. It's all too obvious
that governments actually don't do this. This destroys
social capital, that is, trust, togetherness and the
tender feelings of a caring society. There is "them"
and "us", rather than simply "us" and much effort is
employed in partisan politics which could be much
better utilised in positive pursuits.

Tor Hundloe points out in his book, "From Buddha to
Bono: Seeking Sustainability," that:

"There is a tried and true way of reducing and, if
need be, completely curtailing adverse environmental impacts:
taxation on pollution. Taxes reduce consumption. If high
enough they curtail it..."

Hundloe goes on to say: "In the early 1970s - the Organisation
for Economic Cooperation and development (OECD) recommended
the use of pollution taxes."

"It took the medical profession from the 1960s to the present
era to get the public, and the governments we elect, to act
on the toxic, life-taking efforts of tobacco. Eventually sanity
prevailed, although it took decades."

Hundloe states that - " It is clearly time for economists to
commence their campaign for pollution taxes and getting prices
to tell the truth. With all their power and influence in
society and government, economcists are sitting on their
collective hands. Not good enough."

I agree.

You can't compromise nature and get away with it. Weather events are getting more extreme. Antarctic ice melt is increasing.
We must get off Coal and Oil.
AU is behind in the renewable change.
It is time to do instead of arguing the toss.

Now three acting as a singular wit:) just loving the banter. Yes folks, we environmentalist's are not very smart....Oh dear. At least one point made it through, and thats the benefits of hindsight and the carbon TAX, only for some.

SPQR and off-ling....since the CSIRO are in the making of new in-roads of gen/mod/foods, drought resistant strains, unlike some academics, just might breed brand new tree,s to take the place of old and existing vegetation.

But do we have the time in the realm's of science to achieve such terraforming given the time limits?

"So now, you can relax and go back to eating your coco pops -–by the way, I hope they’re made from FAIRDTRADE coco & rice!

Gen rice SPQR:) cause its about the only answer we have considering the demands of what we humans need from this planet.

( more funding hint,hint )

GMF to adapt in this drying world, or.....well.....lets just wait around and see what happens, I bet I'll have the last laugh.

cc

Sorry lexi and belly, the deeper understandings......"In most industrialised democracies, "wedge politics" -
deliberately creating a division between sectoral
interests - is the name of the game.

Delivered as a true profesional.

I think Monday will have the call.

Thats then Sunday is over.

cc

"One of the main points that the Gillard Government has, is that this tax will benefit not only the world fund, also helps with shortening the disparity's between the rich and the poorer Australians." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5123#137914

Why was it again that it appears to many that AGW theories have more to do with Left wing ideology than science?

"shortening the disparity's between the rich and the poorer Australians" is basically code for hitting middle income earners again, it's too hard to make a cost stick to the really rich but middle income earners are easy pickings.

Maybe if they were really serious about climate change what the government introduced would have had more emphasis on reducing an overall reduction of carbon emissions and less to do with transferring money from middle income earners to others.

R0bert