Shadow I accept that prior to the election, polls consistently showed only about 30% in favour of the carbon tax. This was primarily due to the spin put out by the liberals so they could claim Julia lied. Unfortunately the liberals also decided that they would mislead people by suggesting that all the large rises in electricity prices were due to the carbon tax, whereas in fact most of the price increases are related to other issues such as failure to maintain the network. Further to this the liberals and nationals also claimed that there would be huge increases in the price of things like a leg of lamb costing $100 and places like Whyalla closing down. The whole thing was a scare campaign with the aims of defeating the labour government at the election and helping the big polluters.

There are several problems with the liberal strategy. First of all people will not notice any reduction in prices. The compensation for carbon tax remains in place but the source of revenue to pay for it has been removed, and to cap it all off the taxpayer now will pay to reduce the effects of the big polluters.

The rapid rise in electricity prices has virtually nothing to do with the carbon debate, if you want the truth read this...

http://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2014/july/1404136800/jess-hill/power-corrupts

rechtub, you don't have a handle on the most basic laws of physics (an electric car recharging itself, FCOL!) yet advise us scientifically on AGW?

To those claiming carbon pricing closed energy intensive exporting industries, two words, "carbon credits".

PS. Where is the mighty cohenite?

Looking forward to my $550, tee hee.

Luciferase, Where have I advised on climate change

What I'm referring to is that advising sequestration in tree growth and timber buildings demonstrates no scientific appreciation of the scale of emissions reduction needed to halt the progress in the CO2 level and its consequences, and to reverse these. No doubt, however, paying farmers to grow trees will be a part of a direct action farce ahead.

You reject that a domestic carbon price with credits to exporters to maintain their international competitiveness has, and could continue to, drive efficiency and reduce emissions. Australia can and should have an ETS. All you ever do is argue about who bears the cost. Please look beyond this tiny fixation and recognize that we all bear it, and, that a market based mechanism is the only sensible way to encourage each of us to make decisions that minimize our share of that cost while income tax and pension adjustments ensure equity. I know a few very wealthy people who accept the science, accept that Australia has a role to play regardless of what other nations do, and do not begrudge the little extra they pay to ensure equity exists.

Australia can go it independently while other ETS systems are cropping up around the world. These systems will eventually merge. Instead we adopt the ostrich stance. Why doesn't the LNP just come clean and make the announcement "AGW is crap" and dispense with the pretense of "direct action". They're pretenders and liars, that's why.

Well of course if we had linked to the European system we would be
paying almost nothing now. Christine Milne etc would be having a fit
wanting us to abandon the trading system.

They just cannot get it right can they ?

BTW, it now appears that the temperature rise precedes the CO2 rise.
Chickens and eggs anybody ?