Hi Individual,
Dramatic, structural change is always painful and always difficult.
Mostly because people are reluctant to accept both the need and the rectification process.
In any case, if you accept AGW, then what is your solution? Do nothing?
And if you do accept AGW and you support a particular course of action, then why are you not promoting it; working to see it adopted.
I am not wedded to a Carbon Tax, but I am wedded to the idea that we can't ignore the problem; we must act.
And if a Carbon Tax will even maybe help, then that's something.
But sitting back, doing nothing other than sling a load at anybody who is trying something seems to me to be a tad unproductive.
Give me a better plan that's got a chance of getting up, and I'll come over to your side in a heartbeat.
I'm just not one to fiddle while Rome is burning.
And I do smell smoke.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

There is one question I have never seen answered satisfactorally.
From my reading, it has been shown that the temperatures rise and
then it is later followed by a rise in CO2.
In other words it is A about !

A Swede, Lomberg, I think, proposes that it will be cheaper and
better all round to not try and fight AGW but just adapt to it as it
comes along. After all we only have a certain amount of fossil fuels anyway.

What gets me is that the government refuses to address the Bolt question.
I believe when such large costs are being put on us that that
question should be answered.

ie "By how much will the earth be cooler if the governments CO2 program is applied ?"

ps before you give the Gillard answer; "That is a ridiculous question"
I will point out it has been answered by others.

It seems to me that simply adapting to AGW is an easy option for a Swede.
Sweden is highly developed, wealthy and a likley net beneficiary of AGW, as it is at the cold end now.
However, given that, say, Bangladesh, even by moderate assumption will be mostly underwater, i think it's safe to say that your average Bangladeshi might not be too thrilled by the do nothing and adapt strategy.
Similarly, Australia will not be a net beneficiary, (although our most probable outcome is nothing like as dramatic as countries like Bangladesh), as we will see increased areas of desert and are already seeing increased occurrences of extreme weather events, as predicted by modelling.
Do nothing?
Doen't get my vote.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Anthony I can see we are going to put the RSPCA onto you.

It is even more unkind to flog a nearly dead horse, as it is to flog a dead one, & you sure are flogging this dead horse very hard.

Ant,

For all practical purposes The carbon tax will have zero effect on Australia's weather. It will drive only minor efficiency measures. Without global consensus it is a very expensive gesture.

@AnthonyVW

<<But sitting back, doing nothing other than sling a load at anybody who is trying something seems to me to be a tad unproductive>>

How can anyone with even a smidgen of real world insight (there’s you out clause Anthony, if you want to take it!) assert that in the absence of the carbon tax we’re “doing nothing”?

Just for a moment take a peek-a-boo outside your political cocoon:

1) On the airline front:
More fuel efficient, quieter aircraft.
http://www.boeing.com/aboutus/environment/environmental_report_09/_inc/flash-2-3-2.html

2) On the electric car front:
Longer range, cheaper electric cars.
http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2011/05/17/bill-ford-looks-ahead/
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2012/technology/1203/gallery.electric-cars-future.fortune/index.html

3) On the solar power front:
New break-throughs:
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/science-scope/top-10-solar-power-advances-to-watch/1509

The brains and brawn behind these develops will be what drives the future --NOT THE CARBON TAX!

Compared with the above developments the carbon tax is just a sideshow , a gimmick , a lame payoff by Labor to/for their Green bedfellows.