warmair "A good principle is let the user pay or in this case the polluter."

Except thats thats not what they did, instead Labor set it up as a mechanism for transfer of income (not necessarily wealth). So much support for those Labor deem to be vulnerable without regard for peoples actual circumstances that it became yet another big hit on what one former PM was so fond of referring to as working families.

Labor failed to convince the population that the tax was actually going to benefit the environment and certain didn't lead by example when it cam to curtailing OS travel (and I'm not suggesting the LNP will travel less) and embracing other measures that gave any sign that AGW was an issue they really believed in. If they really believed that cutting carbon emissions was vital a lot more teleconferencing by politicians, not adding in their passion for "wealth" redistribution to the solution and more honesty with the electorate might have made a difference.

Some of those same concepts are applicable to the reasons the LNP is doing so badly in the poles, they have not convinced the population that they really mean it when they talk about the age of entitlement being over, they mislead/lied to the electorate about the measures they would take.

Sometimes what politicians claim to be trying to achieve has value but the means used to achieve it and the lack of committment to the underlying concept by those same politicians undermines the whole thing.

R0bert

"The science is not settled and it appears there has not been any global warming for 13 - 17 years."

Another 2 misconceptions.

1. Science is never settled - even a conservative hippie could spontaneously combust tonight.

2. Conservative hippies are not oceanographers or atmospheric scientists - most of the warming is going into the oceans (causing even more instability and extreme wet weather events for example, when coupled with atmospheric influences).

Redistribution of wealth is socio-political, not scientific.

One can understand why the big-end of town and the business-as-usual power-controllers want to keep it that way.

warmair, Let the user pay you say, this time it's the polluter.

This is where the tax was arse up, as it's the users of the power that should be paying, if anyone, not the generator as they are simply generating on demand.

Now if you tax the user, then their immediate reaction is to reduce their usage. What does this do, it reduces output as demand slows, with the end result, less carbon emissions.

The option that really needs more research is carbon storage and one option would be to promote plantation hardwoods then legislate so that all new houses must have a certain percentage of plantation hardwood as timber stores about half it's weigh in carbon and remains trapped until burnt of rotted.

To simply say we are going to cut emissions by 2020 will destroy jobs as we need to grow our economy to meet future demands, both locally and globally, and you can't do that by cutting back.

BTW, it was always a pointless exercise to cut our emissions while at the same time allow our coal to be burned globally as the planet shares the same air.

So in short, the best way to cut emissions is to tax the user, as they will then reduce their usage. Qantas was a fine example as they paid some $300 million in the first year, whereas if all airlines were ordered to charge customers a green travel tax, calculated on distance travelled, they (airlines) would all be on the same playing field in that respect, whether they were local or not as the tax should be charged on all flights to any country.

People who support the old carbon tax conveniently forget that CO2 emissions is a global problem, not just a local problem and, until it is globally tackled, any country, like Australia, who goes it alone will be disadvantaged.

@Warmair,

Take a look at this:
http://allafrica.com/download/pic/main/main/csiid/00151919:bc2bb20d30d997dc831400b4fa7c8223:arc614x376:w614:us1.jpg

I'll bet they didn't have to have a SIGNAL DRUM TAX to motivate this character to transit to mobile technology

Even the science is becoming skeptical.
Face it the AGW scare is fading, and I suspect it will become history
not far into the future.
It has been long known that it is a better proposition to mitigate
the effects than try and stop them.

However it does not matter, as it is only a marginal problem even if
true compared to what we do have to worry about.
Sometime between 2025 and 2035 world peak coal will occur.
Note I said "World Peak Coal" !
Australia is in a good position in that our peak will be well after
the world peak.
This gives us an economic advantage, whether we sell it or use it.

The same cannot be said for gas. We just do not know how much we can
access and how fast we are selling it.

What we do know is that there will be a lot less fossil fuels burnt than previously.
The quality of US coal is falling and is becoming more expensive as
the seams become harder to access.
It is a very similar process as for peak oil.
Rising extraction costs cause higher prices and lower overall demand
but for particular users, they have to buy no matter what the cost.

That is where we are now, but the politicians of all governments just
don't understand what is going on and will not plan for a new energy regime.
Of course the politicians may be well aware and as the IEA whistle
blower told us they were afraid to let us know about peak oil.

We will need in the future all methods of making energy, solar, wind,
waves, tidal etc etc unless we overcome our nail bighting worry about nuclear.

Just as, you wont need a carbon tax to sell me on one of these:
http://www.toyota-global.com/innovation/personal_mobility/i-road/

Whooohee! It's on the top of wish list

Wonder how long before we see James 007 in one of these?