For the world (society and natural) to function in partnership, there must be balance. There is little doubt that man’s propensity for urbanisation is ONE of the causes of global warming. Add it to naturally occurring cyclic warming (proven) and the seesaw begins to tip.

The solution, warmists insist, is to lessen the amount of pollutants in the atmosphere. And the only way to do this is to impose a tax or carbon credit system. Really? Is imposing a tax that will just allow major pollutants to pass on costs to consumers the best way to go about it? There is no way to know at this stage that Australia’s carbon use will actually lessen. Nor is there any way to measure it accurately.

A single supertanker exhumes more CO2 on a daily basis than every car in the world today. As they are not necessarily subject to Aus tax, how does one reduce those emissions from a mode of transport so necessary to our way of lives and our economy?

While we continue to push for urban sprawl (see the latest announcement by Victorian govt), while we continue to demolish, clear land, erect concrete-clad Mcmansions and office blocks, while we continue to use the biggest polluters of all – container ships and super-tankers – to ferry goods across the world, and while we continue to fell trees (which are our only natural carbon-sinks) at such a rapid rate, then the amount of pollutants will increase, not decrease. Regardless of any kind of tax.

I used to live next to a family (mum, dad, 3 grown boys) who ran seven cars – 2 for a trade business – between them. All big four wheel drives. Yet they lived near the centre of the city, close to all transport services. It was obscene. With a mindset like that, how will a carbon tax change the way they live?

Just as we all got used to the GST (remember the outcry when it was first proposed?) we will soon forget the pain and shoulder the CT too. It will achieve nothing

Anthony,
The real problem is that governments are approaching this from an economic viewpoint. A tax, by definition, is a means to raise revenue. If the government calls this a tax, then it must also concede its true purpose.

But what value do we place upon future generations? Is it simply monetary, a price, an operating cost? Or is it a way of life?

Most of our most innovative and forward thinking green technology companies and start ups have already fled our fair shores in a bid to find someone willing to listen. And they won’t be coming back here any time soon. The government insists that some of the money raised by the tax will be directed to implementing new greener technology. Good luck. Despite many countries around the world managing to live with wind farms, we Aussies are apparently too sensitive. Proposed solar plants in outback regions have been scrapped. Electric cars? What a joke. Where does the power come from to drive them? Coal. And most are imported.

And however well-meaning the federal government likes to sound on the world stage about reducing emissions in this country, state governments are flouting this anyway by increasing the mining, burning and exportation of dirty coal, furthering the dangerous technology of coal seam gas exploration, drilling for oil, exporting millions of tons of iron ore, expanding ports to accept more polluting ships. Yet the things that really matter – good infrastructure, using local goods rather than importing them, languish. Concrete, one of the most widely used building materials in this country (quick, easy to use, and cheaper than conventional materials), is also one of the dirtiest. Doesn’t matter, you can offset that (at extra cost) by installing a solar hot water system and double glazing. Wow. Meanwhile, the carbon emissions gone into forming the concrete still hangs around.

This global problem we face should have nothing to do with economics and everything to do with changing our thinking and the way we live. But to do that we have to change how this country operates, from the top down

OUG! self taught by media spin!
Outstanding rubbish my friend.
Trying to be civil but I think your views mate, and you are my mate.
Come more from head spin than any thing Else.
Wacky Tobacco will do that.
Media plays no roll in putting out science papers.

Great post, Scribbler; makes sense.
I began this thread not with a defense of the carbon tax,but with a reference to yet more evidence supporting the idea that human activity is the cause of global warming.
And as you can see, there are plenty here who are still in denial. I guess no amount of scientific evidence will convince them.
Of course a carbon tax is not the be all and end all of solving teh AGW problem.
But targeted taxes as a means of modifying cultural and societal behaviour has a track record of success, e.g. tobacco.
But as you point out, there is a huge number of pressure points where we need to focus.
And we have to start somewhere.
The carbon tax has become so politicized that nonsense is being peddled everywhere, and a good deal of it in these threads.
For example, it is conveniently forgotten that the carbon tax will migrate to a trading scheme within a few years.
And that far from "going it alone" or "Being ahead of the rest of the world" as some here claim, in fact there are more than thirty other countries with some form of carbon emission impost and many more in the process of setting up such a situation.
Far from being ahead of the pack, we will be close to the middle.
Nevertheless, the reality is that we are going to have a carbon tax and Abbott and co will have a hard time withdrawing it.
When I look carefully at the details of the tax I see an underlying logic - in environmental terms - that makes sense, and I do think it will have a positive impact on our national emmissions.
Moreover, I do not think it will be too painful.
Certainly, the mining companies don't think it will be too painful with more than 500 Billion in new investment plans since the tax was announced.
So, we shall see.
If I'm wrong, so be it, but I don't think I am.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

The CT is about incentivizing change. The GST replaced a raft of consumer taxes and the CT will be offset by significant income tax relief, subsidies, export support and more. So is there any chance people will stop the "big new tax" stuff? Can't we have a mantra-free discussion?

To Bazz's question "By how much will the earth be cooler if the governments CO2 program is applied ?" Obviously not a lot by itself, Bazz, but it will drive national change ahead of the inevitable need for it and serve as a moral international example. I'm with Anthonyve on smoke and fiddles and, unlike those who think adapting will be simpler than countering AGW, I believe climate change will not be as gradual at regional levels as it is at the global level resulting in food insecurity will lead to chaos, war and misery.

The following covers a view I don't presently have time to cover and you will also find associated comments supporting counterviews.

http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/why-australia-afraid-leading-world?utm_source=Climate%2BSpectator%2Bdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Climate%2BSpectator%2Bdaily&utm_source=Climate+Spectator&utm_campaign=82b8e267bf-CSPEC_DAILY&utm_medium=email

I would add, in answer to Bazz's replay of Bolt's silly question about the effect on the world's emissions, that, as the philosophers point out, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
And how far down the road does a single step get one?
Not a whole helluva long way.
But the thing is, you need to make that first step before you can make a second, and a third, and so on.
And that is the point of the exercise.
Of course, Andrew Bolt knows all that perfectly well. And he knows that AGW is real and that we need to tale urgent action.
He's privately said so.
But he cynically chose a destructive path that would make him a great deal of money.
Well, he's welcome to it; it's little more than blood money.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au