Lug wig, Rehctub here, my first choice is not to tax polluters at all, as they only pollute to service our needs, so if anyone should be taxed, it's the user of energy, not the producer.

If the user gets slugged with the tax, they will have little choice other than to cut back, however, this will hurt the poor and not really bother the rich.

One system is to offer cheap power for the first X amount of KW's used, essentially enough to run a very basic home, no pool, no dryer etc.

I have long held the view it's better to reward than punish, as people will do anything for a reward.

However, if we have to have a tax on big business, it should be an ETS.

Hasbeen, you are presenting the most optimistic possible scenario regarding the future supply of oil. In all probability it will be nowhere near that good.

And we need to consider these all-important points:

rapidly increasing population, both in Australia and globally,

rapidly increasing per-capita consumption, especially in China and India,

increasing population plus increasing per-capita consumption means an ongoing very rapid increase in the demand for oil, on top of the current phenomenally huge global demand,

and changed economics [considerably more expensive energy sources] as new and more difficult sources of oil/hydrocarbons come online.

<< We have enough oil in central Qld to supply all our needs for a similar length of time. >>

Really? And at what price?

By “we”, I take it you mean all of Australia?

My assertion remains: we need to err on the side of caution and strive to wean ourselves off of our addiction to oil, most significantly in order to protect us against a huge peak oil upheaval.

Rehctub, that sounds reasonable.

I’m just not sure which would be the most effective way of doing it. All I can really say is that we must definitely be doing something by way of financial incentives to get us to move towards renewable energy.

The second major point is as I keep saying; that we can’t stop after one or two little steps in this direction. If we did, we would basically be just upholding business as usual and only putting in a token effort at change.

Ludwig & rehctub,

I happened upon the below in a recent Fortune magazine.
[Love the idea about solar space stations –way to go!]
But of particularly relevance to your little discussion is the graph headed: “The Future Of Electric Generation”
Given its prediction of our continued reliance on carbon sources what are the implications?
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/01/05/energy-solutions-solar-space-panels/

Butcher, you ask as the title of your thread:

>> Do you think labor are getting the message? <<

Others see it quite differently as in this National Times article:

http://tinyurl.com/merchants-of-doom

Perhaps the real question to ponder is:

Does anyone think the so called "No-alition" is getting the message?

A lot of ostriches out there, obviously.