Australia is responsible only for its own emissions. However, once we do something we will have a standing point to pressure other countries. The "nobody else is doing enough so why should we do anything" argument is meaningless. It does not shed us from our own responsibilities. Other countries are taking measures against climate change and only the ones that aren't are used in this defence. Appalling selectiveness to prop up a failed argument.

Carbon Tax. Polluters pay for their CO2 emissions. Will work to reduce Australia's emissions from a business as usual position using economic leverage.  If habits by households are completely unchanged they will incur a 0.7% increase in the cost of living. If they change their habits their cost of living may decrease with added compensation. The price on carbon will be passed onto the consumer, nobody is denying this. The flaw of the coal lobby groups is saying business will drop and the carbon tax will have no effect. Yes we will be using less coal, that is the whole point. Less coal burned means less CO2 so the carbon tax will work. The coal lobby groups represent **BUSINESSES** and only care about making money, they don't care about jobs or the environment or our society (they are made up of foreigners).

"Direct Action". Two components. One component consists of giving tax payers money to multimillion or multibillion dollar corporations for each tonne of CO2 they don't produce. We will pay them to be clean. Polluters are not penalized for polluting more, so the scheme is optional. The second component consists of using new and unproven technology to lock up carbon in soils. Australian scientists say the scheme is unlikely to work in Australian soils due to the conditions here and may release more CO2 then it aims to sequester. Also, for the scheme to work it has to measure how much carbon has been locked up into the soil so the carbon can be paid for. There is no practical way of measuring carbon content in soils over large areas and there aren't even theoretical ways of doing such a thing on the horizon. The price offered for locking up carbon in soil is $15 per tonne but farmers say it would have to be at least $25 per tonne to make it economical. The carbon in soil technology proposal has been rejected by all stakeholders as either impractical or uneconomical.

"Direct Action", apart from being at the best, optional, at the worst, impractical, is going to be at least 50% more expensive and more likely 100% more expensive than the carbon tax. It appears that Tony Abbott has read some sci-fi articles about carbon capture and has rejected all advice from the people who would be responsible for working the policy. Offering more tax payer money to rich corporations always goes down well with the lobby groups, that's what they are there for.

It is hard to say what effect this will have on voters once they understand Abbott's alternative to the carbon tax.

Alan Jones reckons carbon pollution is a con and I see no reason to doubt a man of his expansive knowledge and good character   

Abbott has publicly endoresed a carbon tax on at least two occasions. Recently he said the coalition would have their own carbon tax if elected.

Then again, he has also made some pretty silly criticisms of the tax:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/coalition-climate-change-policy.html

Economists almost universally oppose his direct action plans.

suppose they, Liberals, can always blame labor......

I've read so much about both sides of the argument..and like most Australians i'm not an expert by any means. But the blindingly obvious conclusion is we have to start taxing the polluters!! What crunched it for me 100% was when David Attenborough finally came out and agreed on the enormous NEED to address climate change..reducing carbon was paramount for the survival of our natural world. The only people against this for an obvious reason is the big corporate mining world and it's share holders. Why on earth our young people are running around calling our PM all sorts of sexist names because of this important policy that addresses the future of their planet and their very lives defies all logic. 

NOT enough.

Swagman wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2011 at 10:30pm:


Perhaps we would be, if the risks of Nuclear power didn't right this moment have Japan on its knees.

Not a high ground. We would have caught up to the rest of the developed world.