Sorry Ludwig, I didn't see your question.

I have to make it clear I am not in favor of either as I am convinced the answer lies in finding ways, or changing our ways to store carbon. After all, reduced emissions means reduced productivity, means reduced REAL employment.

One small example is farme and their fences/yards.
many now are turning to steel, mainly because it's cheaper to import steel from China than it is to but timber fencing rails, posts.

Of cause, manufacturing steel produces carbon, regardless of where it is made and, there is a fair chance our coal was burned to produce it.

So, my suggestion would be for governments to subsidize timber for farming, and building for that matter, so it become attractive to them.

Just remember, every old stock yard you see in the country,every timber fence post, there are millions, many haing been there for fifty years or more, store carbon.

OUG says...only the worst poluters will pay
so stop whinning..they pay...lol..not us

So, I ask OUG, why do they produce these emissions?

Sure, they do it to make money, but the real reason they produce this carbon is to serve our needs.

Meanwhile, jobs are being slashed everywhere and your lot are all very very busy looking for an excuse.

So the government has propped up the dying car industry, so are they also going to prop up the media industry I wonder.

Only fools gamble with what they can't afford to loose.

"Meanwhile, jobs are being slashed everywhere and your lot are all very very busy looking for an excuse." Not at all, butch, the carbon tax did it!

Seriously tho', re your idea about sequestration of CO2 in wood construction, we can grow more trees to soak up extra CO2, problem solved, let's start planting. We'll call it an emissions trading scheme and we'll replace this stupid carbon tax with it. The Mad Monk can take the idea to the next election instead of of asking tax-payers to pay industry to reduce emissions.

I hurt myself today, oh that carbon tax!

Dear LF,

Here's something that many people may not realise.
Abbott's paid maternity leave scheme will cost
companies far more then the carbon pricing legislation
ever could. Plus he's made the promise to repel
the Gillard Government's pricing legislation (a pledge
in blood) if he becomes PM. As Laurie Oakes has pointed out
Mr Abbott, "would roll back something as big and
complex as the carbon price scheme - it is an easy promise
to make but hugely difficult to keep without great
upheaval."

Mr Abbott though has a record of making promises that
are unaffordable. Everyone knows that - but he's also
a hypocrite in blaming the PM for the "carbon tax,"
while what he's proposing (his paid maternity leave)
will hit businesses even harder than the carbon pricing
ever could.

The paid maternity leave will cost more than the carbon tax. When did you dream this up? Maths not your strong point I see.

It took a year to implement, why should it not take a year to remove? one just reverses every thing. It can't cause as much damage as the tax caused being implemented. The costs can be covered by scrapping all the greens silly schemes.

Dear SM,

Do your research old chap.
Or ask Andrew Bolt. He wrote an excellent
column on this very issue. Or is doing
research not your strong point?

I'm hearing it, Lexi, "the babies did it!" Oh yeah.

SM says "The costs can be covered by scrapping all the greens silly schemes." A few slashed green schemes wouldn't pay for a repeal, but income tax rises, pension reductions, a GST increase or removal of carbon tax compensation schemes to exporters would. Make your own blend, but it's hard to take back what's given while claiming it's an improvement and paying emitters to create efficiencies.

The omelet will be nigh on impossible to unscramble, blood oath or no. I really do think you're on a loser here, oh authoritative one http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/abbotts-blood-oath-may-become-bloody-nuisance-20111018-1lyr5.html