Ludwig - I fully agree.

Loudmouth.
If a company reduces its carbon footprint, it pays less carbon tax, - an incentive to do hard yards towards avoiding the disaster that will occur if global temperatures aren't brought under control.
If you or I reduce reduce our power usage/costs, we still keep the rebate - i.e. we don't give it back to the government.
So, there is still an incentive for us to reduce our energy footprints, but we have some buffer against rising costs.
Also, keep in mind that in a few years - I think it's 2015/16, the carbon tax moves to a carbon trading system.
Already there are many SME's developing businesses selling carbon credits.
I am currently helping one such with its strategic planning.
This company is working on growing bamboo, (which is much more effective at converting CO2 to O2 than trees, but will grow in marginal soil), to sell the offsets.
This company will create jobs, (not many but some), and will help farmers to turn currently more or less useless land into a revenue generator.
My point is that there is a fair amount of logic behind the carbon tax/trading scheme.
But first people have to accept that:
1. Scientists (mostly) are not stupid;
2. Scientists are not engaged in some vast conspiracy to fund their research;
3. That no credible scientist or scientific body doubts that the world is warming;
4. That there are only two countries where climate science is seriously questioned, the USA and Australia.

I have just returned from five weeks in Europe and I can say that nowhere did I encounter any debate about global warming. There, everywhere I visited, the science is accepted, and they are getting on with finding solutions.
Only Australia and the USA - and in both those countries Right Wing politicians (Republicans in the US and the Coalition here) have made it a political football.
Co-incidence? I don't think so.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

<< … everywhere I visited, the science is accepted, and they are getting on with finding solutions. Only Australia and the USA - and in both those countries Right Wing politicians (Republicans in the US and the Coalition here) have made it a political football. >>

Very interesting Anthony.

Anthonyve,

<< … everywhere I visited, the science is accepted, and they are getting on with finding solutions. Only Australia and the USA - and in both those countries Right Wing politicians (Republicans in the US and the Coalition here) have made it a political football. >>

Of course, there are no right wing political parties in Europe ...

And, how's that going for them in Europe at the moment?

Ludwig please explain why we should reduce our use of oil.

From my reading on the subject I find that anyone who has kept up with the latest research could not possibly believe the global temperature is going to be effected in any material way by the mild increase of CO2 in our atmosphere.

Even the rabid warmists admit that their predictions require a very strong positive feed back from an increase in water vapour to have more than a minor effect.

All recent findings have been that this feed back is actually negative. How much longer are you, & people like you & Anthoyve going to hold on to a failed theory, without demanding some physical, as distinct from computer modeled, evidence?

Russian scientists are predicting global cooling, as are many Japanese, so perhaps we do still have an obvious spilt. Those needing grants do appear to be the only ones pushing AGW, despite Ant's assertions.

Of course the Chinese are simply laughing at the idiots in the west, as they grow rich on our stupidity.

I really would like you to give me the evidence, as you see it, so I can evaluate it, & what you are saying.

Bamboo, sounds good, just watch out for the root system's.
Europe are doing it tough, doesn't mean projects come to a standstill.
Say 20% unemployment, means 80$ still working.
No doubt modifications will be made on the carbon tax as it goes along.
The major fact is it will begin.
Climate change, global warming, what ever you call it, cannot be denied.
To reduce emitting co2 now voluntarily, is better than reducing emitting, co2 compulsorily.

Anthonyve,

From your earlier post – Australia is far from being the most profitable country for resources development. In fact, it is a very expensive place to develop and run mines – high labour costs, high costs of consumables and services, a raft of direct and indirect taxes and of course, the requirement to pay royalties to the state governments. The underlying cost of production for minerals industry in Australia is frightening and many projects are only viable at the moment due to elevated commodity prices. When they fall, and they will, you will see a significant number of mines close. (You will get your wish).

On the flipside, the Australian community derives benefits from all these items – directly and indirectly.

You say that “the miners here get to screw we ordinary Australians out of our fair share”. How is that? The states have a constitutional right to impose royalties which they do – this is the “purchase” from the people of Australia for the right to extract minerals. In WA (and I assume in other states without checking), the royalties are levied on the sales revenue of the minerals (less a small deduction allowable for transport costs only) so the royalties are automatically indexed on sale prices. WA collected $4.9 billion in royalties last year.

Miners do not begrudge these payments – it is simply another input cost to be assessed against the feasibility of the project.

(continued ...)