What the country needs, Russell, is a vision driven by citizens that will deliver political direction. Any nation is only the sum of each individual. It is up to each of us, as citizens, to know what we want for Australia.

Kim,

Yes, of course, no arguments there, however the essential problem is to find the magic social/political algorithm that produces the required vision, isn't it? We have a foreign head of state, practically no film or TV industry, a middle class welfare industry, an obsession with spending taxpayers' funds on the production of useless and expensive elite athletes (rather like East Germany) and a "Great and Powerful Friend" mentality. I can't determine whether those are the symptoms or causes of Australia's sense of inadequacy, or that they're mutually reinforcing. As I pointed out, we've made remarkably little progress during the last 45 years since "The Lucky country" was published.

My own pet theory is that much of the poor quality of our political culture is due, at least in part, to two factors--

(1) Compulsory voting, the apathetic and ignorant have to be compelled to the polls- therefore the emphasis on the Machiavellian approach of appealing to the voters fears and prejudices.

(2) The short electoral cycle- it should be 5 years.

I could also add our journalists' obsession with political theatre rather than policy--I'm referring to the ABC, I don't expect quality reporting from the commercial media and so I'm never disappointed.

I don't think you will ever see a "real Labor Party" in Australia again. They are too compromised by the progression from union leader, to MP to Minister to seats on the board of the industry for which they were minister or union leader.

In my view the only Party with real achievable long term vision for Australia is the Greens. Their economic policies resemble (and precede), the Henry Tax Review, and their education policies resemble (and precede) the Gonski Report. They are not afraid of the mining lobby or the media, or other corporate bullies, and have a vision for a more equitable Australia that looks after its own, be that people, resources or National treasures.

My fear is that by the time the Greens achieve government, it will be too late.

http://greens.org.au/policies

Harrigan wrote: "On the RSPT though - it should not be forgotten that Rudd and Swan comprehensively stuffed up the way they introduced it."

No, that's pretty much mythology, although as leader at the time Rudd probably has to accept some responsibility for Swan stuffing the whole thing up behind his back.

The Australian has it right for once: http://tinyurl.com/76xhmsu

Yuri - I think it's nit picking as to whether or not Swan or Rudd was the major culprit. Both mispoke in the public arena (making it a them vs us matter) - and Rudd as the leader has to carry the ultimate responsibility.

The point, however, is that labor (under Rudd) comprehensively stuffed up a major opportunity to introduce a tax that would see a greater sharing of the wealth from the mining boom with the legal owners of the minerals - namely the "crown" representing the common weal of the people of Australia. That didn't show "vision".

Mark, yes, you're probably correct.

Thanks Yuri - in defence of the point you were making - I did find the article to which you linked (though I've sworn off ever buying the Australian ever since they adopted their hypocritcal approach to climate change reporting) very interesting. It shows Swan really stuffed it up but also just how disconnected Rudd was from his colleagues and the real world - which is why it amazes me that so many still think he should be prime minister.

I suppose we can all lament the lack of visionary leadership we have. Oh for a leader who could both celebrate our great strengths as a nation (and help us feel good about ourselves rather than promote the current mean spiritdness) but also use this to articulate an aspirational platform to insipre the nation to build on the strengths and do more for ourselves and the world rather than simply try and take credit for it (or beat up the problems and be negative).

I don't see anyone on the horizon even remotely like that though :(

Yes, the irony of me quoting from The Australian has not escaped me!

I'd be willing to give Rudd another chance, if for no reason other than he might be able to turn the ALP's dismal electoral prospects around. The polling popularity numbers don't lie. I think we would see an immediate jump to close to 50/50 two party preferred.

I really can't bear to think of the loony tunes we would have to face with an Abbott government in tow with state conservative governments. Science in general would be the big loser, let alone climate science. But I guess I'm just one of those out-of-touch 'elites' -- like yourself of course ;-).

We'll have to agree to disagree about Rudd - I though he was one of the worst leaders ever - with a borderline psychotic narcissism. I take your point about the polls but I suspect such a lead would soon evaporate when the electorate was reminded about just how bad he was.

I actually am (grudgingly) okay with Gillard - was willing to give Abbott a fair hearing but now would never vote for a party he leads.

What might actually give us mature politics and the chance to establish a dynamic discourse articulating a vision would be if Turnball took the helm again with the Libs and Bill Shorten took over labour. Unlikely though sadly

Mark, Turnbull I like; but Shorten . . . never in a million years. I'd go for Combet, but that's not likely either. He needs to smile more :-).

And if Turnbull did manage a comeback, we'd likely see a 60/40 two-party preferred split and Labor would stand on the brink of absolute destruction (with the current leader) with only handful of seats in the federal house. I wonder if they have made plans for such an event. A Turnbull resurrection is not impossible, although unlikely at this time.

Curious Yuri - what is your objection to Shorten? He presents and articulates well. Yes he's ambitious and knows how to turn a situation to advantage but I assess he's handled his policy portfolios rather well.

Pity Turnbull can't seem to get the nod. With the right support he'd be one of a very few people who could truly improve the nature of politics from what we're currently enduring.

Mark, what I can say is that for all of Rudd's alleged faults -- which have been over-emphasised by his opponents in my view -- it was a disgraceful act to dump him in his first term after he dragged them to government.

I looked up the polling stats and when he was dumped, and Labor was still ahead 52-48% two-party preferred. So that excuse was bull****.

This was a modern day coup, pure and simple, organised by some parliamentary members and union officials very close to mining company interests; and, I might add, that have traditionally fought the environment movement tooth and nail.

If this mob gain control (have control?) of the Labor Party I will not vote for them. Better to lose by 50 seats than 10. Greens 1, no preferences!

Yuri - I'd have to disagree with you about Rudd - David Marr got it right I think. http://www.theage.com.au/national/recipe-for-ruin-lay-within-20100624-z3hz.html

"The public loved him.

Rudd looked different close up. So many who worked around him came to loathe him. His energy and resilience were phenomenal. So were his temper and self-belief. Caucus colleagues felt belittled. Ministers were frustrated. Staff fled"

and

"Part of the problem was Rudd's old ambition to find decent solutions to the nation's ills. Decency is personal, intuitive, hard to delegate. Marry that to a sense of indispensability right off the Richter scale, and you had a recipe for ruin. Rudd had enemies everywhere. When the polls turned after Copenhagen, and plunged once Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan persuaded Rudd to dump the ETS, he found he had few friends where it mattered: in caucus.

Another man might have changed his ways. Had the party thought that was possible, Rudd might have survived. But the verdict was that changing Rudd was not possible. The problems were deep and personal. The brutal conclusion was he had to go."

He was a TERRIBLE leader and manager. What I think few realise is that to lead and govern you have to actually be able to work with people as well as have vision and lead - Rudd couldn't work with anyone - he was a micro-manager control freak with no ability to listen and reflect.

That is NOT a persona I would like to have as PM (I accept you may think differently)

Also - on the polls at the time

18–20 Jun 2010

35% Primary
36% Lib Primary
4% Nat Primary
15% Green
10% Other
52%/ 48% 2 party preferred (as you say) BUT that was based on the same preference distribution as the prior election - and the indicators were it would NOT go like that. It was the primary vote AND Rudds disfunctionalty that led to him being deposed. I think your analysis of the motives for removing him are unsupportbale

I also disagree that it was a disgraceful act. It escapes most peoples attention but we do NOT actually elect a prime minister in this country. They are chosen by the party that wins control of the house of reps.

Also - what do you mean by "mob" controlling the labor party? Union influence in the labor party has been a matter of concern for some time?

Finally - you didn;t say a thing about Shorten - why is he an issue?

By its nature Suzy, democracy is shaped by collective action and action by its nature is the sum of individual choice. It is easy to be told what to think and vote accordingly. It is more radical to do our own thinking and figure out what we should be striving for. We can risk isolation by stepping away from the mob, or we may find the freedom to speak our mind in a spirit of independence. When we find our liberty, then we can begin to create a more dynamic nation.

Australians are an amazing people and I suspect that we will begin to amaze the world; and not too far away.

I'm encourage by your hopeful outlook, as a futures thinking research student I share it on an intellectual level, yet often feel discourage by present day events on an emotional level.

Well, Rudd only dumped the ETS after the Greens, stupidly, would not support it. As a Greens voter, I was appalled at the short-sightedness of that decision.

I applauded the farsightedness of the Greens' decision to NOT support the creation of yet another tradeable derivative.

MAke no mistake, ALL emission trading schemes have NOTHING to do with decreasing CO2 emissions, but everything to do with the transfer of obscene amounts of economic wealth to the financial sector.

The correct approach to eliminating fossil fuel use is to introduce, then steadily increase, fossil fuel consumption tax (FFCT).

1. Start cutting taxes.
2. Make up the revenue shortfall with a consumption tax on fossil fuel (FFCT).
3. Cut more taxes, and continue making up the revenue shortfall by increasing the rate of the FFCT.
4. Continue with step 3 until fossil fuel use is decreased to the extent required.
5. Continue with step 3 a bit more, as the need to cut fossil fuel use even more is confirmed by scientific observation.

Search the literature, and you'll find NO studies that find ETS's are preferable to consumption taxes; you will, however, find many studies finding that consumption taxes are vastly preferable to ETS's.

I recommend you download and read a set of essays published by Committee for the Economic Development of Australia "A Taxing Debate - The forgotten issues of climate policy" http://www.ceda.com.au/media/121695/a%20taxing%20debate%20-%20the%20forgotten%20issues%20of%20climate%20policy.pdf

There's a summary at http://www.ceda.com.au/media/121692/a%20taxing%20debate_summary.pdf

David, the Greens only knocked the ETS back because it did not go far enough, without acknowledging that getting something off the ground was the most important consideration.

And I would suggest it's easy to selectively quote literature to support a point. The fact is that:

"The departmental statistics (Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) show that from 2015, 35 countries were expected to have national emissions trading schemes, including the Republic of Korea and China while a further 11 sub-national jurisdictions in the US and Canada were also supposed to join. This would cover a total population of around 2 billion and account for about 45 per cent of global gross domestic product."

An ETS is the preferred approach.

It's a little off topic but I do not think your opposition to an ETS (vs a Carbon tax) is supported by the devidence David.

Well explained here.

https://theconversation.edu.au/explainer-the-difference-between-a-carbon-tax-and-an-ets-1679

Pros and Cons to both. The downside of a tax is that is does NOT set a limit to emissions. The downside of an ETS is that opens up the risk of financially traded arbitrage - but that is NOT its designed purpose as you claim and is something that can be managed.

Most economists tend to prefer an ETS since it uses a market mechanism - and you can drive the price by limitting (and steadily reducing) the number of permits.

It's not as black and white as you suggest, sorry.

Thanks for that comment Mark.

You write that the downside to a tax is that it does not set a limit to emissions. In fact, a tax does set a limit to emissions. What you do is ramp up the tax, year by year, until the emissions decline to the level required.

Emission trading, on the other hand, transforms CO2 emissions from an environmentally damaging activity that must be priced out of the economy into a scarce commodity, just like recreational drugs when there's a big bust. Like recreational drugs when there's a big bust, you get wild price fluctuations, which suits no-one other than the commodity traders. The real economy, on the other hand, is destabilised by those same wild price fluctuations.

That *most* economists prefer what they imaginatively call a "market mechanism goes to the limited comprehension of those same economists. The might understand equilibrium or near-equilibrium perturbations, but their understanding does not extend to the far-from-equilibrium of the real world.

A tax with a steadily increasing rate has the benefit of allowing planners to plan their programme of emission-reducing investment in advance, rather than jerk around in response to price fluctuations created by a screen jockey in some far away tax haven.

Thanks Yuri, an ETS may well be the preferred approach, but that doesn't mean it is the best possible approach. What I'm pointing out is that it is a lousy sub-optimal approach, devised by second-rate minds asnd spruikers with an interest in their own hip pockets.

Australia's tragedy is that, rather than accept the reality of climate change and argue for the optimal pricing structure to eliminate fossil fuel use, Mr Abbott has chosen to just say 'nyet'.

As ever, Australia is poorly served by its political class. One side argues for the sub-optimality of giving free rein to far-off tax-haven screen jockeys, the other side is hell-bent on environmental devastation. Great choice.

David - we are probably arguing about finer points - but again I don't think you are quite right.

We do, I think, both agree that what is needed is to put a price on emissions - so that the current "free" externalities associated with emssions carry a penalty to the emitter. The question is what is the optimal way to do this?

A Tax does NOT inherently set a limit to emissions - it simply makes them more expensive. Your argument ONLY holds if there is a price elasticity in relation to the emssions that is negative and conforms to the "Law of Demand"- namely that the more expensive you make emissions the more people will avoid them. Now, I accept that this is true to some degree - but it isn't a given. If something is "unavoidable" a pricing mechanism that makes it more expensive will not necessarily reduce its incidence. To draw a somewhat stretched analogy - you could make "death" as expesnive as you liked - it wouldn't significantly reduce it's incidence.

Most economists DO agree that a Carbon Tax will have the effect of reducing emissions (Nordhaus for example) so it's clearly a useful option. If we could see it applied universally it might even be the best (indeed I think Nordhaus basically says this) - but how do we make that happen?

Another "downside" therefore of a tax is that it doesn't cross national borders. An ETS has the potential to do so

And permits (tradeable) have another benefit - you limit emissions a priori - only so many are allowed and you progressaively reduce the "scarce commodity" as you call it (ultimately to zero).

As I have said - both have their pros and cons. I accept that you prefer a tax to an ETS. But I think you misrepresent the relative merits.

Personally i think the australian approach that starts out as a form of tax but will "evolve" into emissions trading as the world starts to adopt carbon pricing mechanisms isn't a bad one.

Under the heading of "vision" it might even be seen as taking some sort of leadership role. Time will tell of course

(BTW - it's a pleasure to have a civil discussion and an informed exchange of differing views rather than doing battle with the usual climate pseduo-skeptics - Cheers - Mark)

Concerning "the usual climate pseudo-skeptics" I have come to wonder if human society is plagued by a deeper level of denial that can come to threaten the survival of that society, leading to civilization collapse.

This is revealed in a nutshell on Easter Island, where they built a neat little civilization with a growth-industry in statue building, but in the process cut down all the trees. When they discovered that humans live by more than rock alone, they lost the lot in an orgy of civil war and cannibalism.

If we cannot grasp an overview of our situation, are we better off than the Easter Islanders, or any more advanced?

The test of our survival will be the sum of political behaviour and any real change in this can only come from a ground-swell of enlightened reason that, like Winston Churchill in 1942, faced the stark choice and rallied Britain for survival.

I suggest that our overview needs to include an accurate appreciation of the global energy demand that is not going away and exactly how we can bring fossil carbon levels down in the air and sea before total catastrophe removes all hope for the humanity.

If the carbon tax is a frilly bit on a political position, it is a dangerous distraction from the demands of survival driven by politicians with blinkered agendas.

When the focus hones down to that of our survival, then we will see the sparks fly and as with the last great war, the emergence of a totally new form of human society.

My overview tells me that this will include a confident survival presence beyond Earth, or we may see the beginning of the end of humanity on Earth, even in a swift descent into an orgy of global wars.

Interesting points Kim. My worry is that a fair amount of climate change that is deleterious is already locked in.

And by the time the situation becomes signficantly worse so that pseudo-skeptic deniers no longer have a public stage (well in excess of their actual numbers I suspect but amplified by short term special interests who can see their current wealth in fossil fuel burning under threat and will do anything to perpetuate it) it will be too late to arrest the problem.

One of the issues that rarely get's an airing in the discussion is that once tipping points are reached we can have all the renewables (and/or nuclear or whatever other low CO2 emitting alternatives we're willing to consider) we like - wew could turn off fossil fuels and it would be too late - the damage will have been done.

Most current research suggests the clock is ticking on that one - perhaps less than a decade remains before drastic action is required. Then the very damage to the economy that those who oppose the carbon tax complain about will look like pennies.

So part of any Vision needs to articulate to people that we live in a world of lesser evil choices - and that failure to taking action now will only result in much more pain later. On the plus side if we exercise some leadership in change now we can improve our own fortunes, those of our children and fellow humans

It is to be hoped we never reach the "Easter Island" scenario - although one wonders whether there were any voices raised there when the issue became apparent?

Pseudo-skeptic deniers who are a barrier to even exploring effective action alternatives will have a lot to answer for. Alas they will no doubt be conspicuously absent from taking any sort of accountability when the time comes

Thanks Mark. Weitzmann's 1971(?) paper "Prices v Quantities" was cited in the Henry Review as justification for preferring 'cap-and-trade' schemes over consumption taxation.

In fact, Weitzmann presented a solid argument in direct opposition; that is, Weitzmann found that decreasing emissions by imposing a price is the economically optimum technique.

You are right that a tax does not set an inherent limit on emissions. What a tax does is to get taxpayers looking for ways to minimise their tax. They look for new technology eg PV panels and deep-cycle batteries to replace their coal-fired power. This also creates demand for innovation and further technological development.

What's more, the tax cuts that offset the increasing rate of carbon consumption taxation allows investment in low/zero emission technology and equipment eg exercise cycle recharging a battery powering a TV tuned in to "Biggest Loser".

None of this happens with an ETS. What with all the money diverted into the pockets of the undeserving rich aka commodity traders, no-one has money to invest in anything. Emission reductions? Everyone else goes broke except the biggest corporations whose pockets are deep enough to afford permits, and the brokerage fees allow all the commodity traders to replace their Maseratis with Teslas.

I repeat: please download and read CEDA's comparison of "cap-and-trade" with carbon consumption tax.

You say that a tax doesn't cross borders: well, Australia cannot be other nations' keeper. What Australia can and should do is cease using fossil fuel as quickly as possible. The consumption tax scheme set out by Geoff Carmody in the reference I've given shows that this is inherent in the design of a consumption tax, and requires no artificial addition of "compensation". If you include the carbon emissions of shipping goods to Australia in the border adjustment tax, there's even a net encouragement for Australian domestic manufacturing in preference to import of goods.

I've posted comments to other "The Conversation" pieces in this regard. If you google term "border adjustment" at site:theconversation.edu.au, you'll find several such entries.

For example, here's what I posted in response to Neil Perry's 12 April 2012 column (http://theconversation.edu.au/attacks-on-the-constitutionality-of-the-carbon-tax-reinforce-the-need-for-complementary-policies-6055).

Thanks for this discussion, Neil.

Committee for the Economic Development of Australia's "A taxing debate - the forgotten issues of climate policy" (www.ceda.com.au/.../a%20taxing%20debate%20- %20the%20forgotten%20issues%20of%20climate%20policy.pdf) is worth a read. This collection of essays by Michael Porter, Geoff Carmody and William Nordhaus pretty well demolish any claim that emission trading schemes are suitable, let alone optimal vehicles for setting climate policy.

My own policy preference is based on Carmody's consumption tax proposal.

Where Carmody proposes a consumption tax on "carbon emissions", I see that a consumption tax on the carbon content of fossil fuels would achieve the same purpose, as well as being far easier to measure. It also has the benefit of targeting the cause of the climate problem, which is fossil fuels; biofuels are not fossil fuels, are not part of the problem, and should not be penalised.

[Fossil fuels have formed over hundreds of millions of years by carbon geosequestration, resulting in the earth having the climate in which human civilisation has developed; our economy has functioned by recycling this geosequestered carbon to the atmosphere, which is the nexus that we need to sever over the next few decades.]

Whereas emissions are hard to measure, fossil fuel consumtion is easy to measure.

Another point that Carmody doesn't set out in sufficient detail is the 'border adjustment' tax imposed in goods at port of import to Australia. Carmody's intention is that this border adjustment should represent the fossil carbon consumed in manufacture of goods imported to Australia; my border adjustment tax would explicitly include the fossil fuel used to transport the good from its nation of origin to Australia.

In my scheme, and possibly in Carmody's also, the revenue from this carbon consumption tax would be used to cut other taxes, thus relieving other taxed money flows (personal income, company profits etc) of the burden of taxation. Instead, the burden of taxation is placed fairly and squarely on fossil fuel use.

What we then do is increase the rate of the fossil fuel consumption tax (with adjustments to all other tax rates) until fossil fuel use has been priced out of use, and low/zero fossil fuel alternatives are employed instead. We adjust tax rates again as appropriate.

This scheme has the benefit of ensuring optimal decreases in fossil fuel use and seamless transformation of the economy's tecnological basis. No money gets diverted into the pockets of derivative traders, the economy is not exposed to the price volatility risk of bringing on another GFC.

Best of all, all taxpayers are engaged in investing their tax savings in low/zero fossil fuel using equipment and technology, rather than just the 500 biggest emitters. Whereas the 500 biggest emitters can only possibly be interested in their own commercial positions, other taxpayers are parents who want to do what they can for the world in which their children will live.

Thanks David - I enjoyed this reply - good food for thought and i will refer to some of the references you have provided.

And please don't get wrong. I am not arguing in favour of an ETS vs a Carbon Tax. Only that I don't see an ETS is quite as bad as you say. Also - why is it the revenue from permits cannot be used to reduce taxes elsewhere (just as a carbon tax)?

I do like the notion of a carbon consumption tax - but see a problem cross border since it would price our goods and services to a point where they were uncompetitive - or do you see exports being exempt?

The other problem with a border adjustment tax is that it can act like a tariff (which is inefficient).

nevertheless I will read the links - appreciate them :)

Gday Mark,

As Geoff Carmody sets out, the treatment under a Fossil Fuel Consumption Tax (FFCT) of imports and exports could mimic their treatment under the GST - exports are 'zero rated' at the point of export, and imports have a border adjustment tax imposed. Carmody's criticisms of the CPRS (by implication, also of CPRS v2.0 aka Clean Energy Futures) are based on its (their) adverse trade implications.

Regarding fossil fuel consumption, a border adjustment tax as I outline is the direct opposite of inefficient - it precisely and exactly taxes the fossil fuel emissions. After all, if it takes 1 kg of fossil fuel to make a widget in Finland, and 2 kg of fossil fuel to transport it to Australia, but only takes 1.5 kg of fossil fuel to make the widget in Australia - surely the world is less badly off if Australia makes its own widgets? [The same would then hold for Finland, where widgets imported from Australia would come with a 3.5 kg fossil fuel cost as against the 1 kg fossil fuel cost of the local manufacture, and the Finns would tax the two products accordingly.]

If a fossil carbon consumption tax happens to encourage local manufacturing, then well and good.

I've always been somewhat sceptical of the worth of "comparative advantage" theory, particularly as ~4% of global fossil fuel use is in international transport - it sounds too much like a form of arbitrage for my liking.

Kim, I am taken by many of your arguments especially with an historical perspectine, though I have more of an alignment to the Greens perspective I suspect. Your vision has an almost H G Wells view of human nature and given his accuracy in predicting so much of our present world, who am I to dispute. My concerrn is that unlike Wells belief in a Things to Come style benevolent society also propogated in the Star Trek philosophy, that we as humans will not realise the folly of our actions any more than previous civilisations did that we now read about as extinct entities from past times.

I wonder if the driving force within denial is a gut-felt awareness that without progress, we will not survive and progress demands energy, which for us comes from fossil fuel.

If our plan for survival delivers a dynamic progress beyond Earth, where the energy-well of our star is essentially unlimited, those in denial would not have a leg to stand on.

This is also the ultimate environmental plan, as it will enable us to deliver a sustainable human presence on Earth.

All current plans are no more than a gamblers desperate casting of the dice in the hope of a win.

I suspect that the tipping points are already locked in, as the global environment steadily ratchets toward a massive release of greenhouse gases from Arctic permafrost, ocean floor methane clathrates, drying soils and dying rainforests.

On the basis of the precautionary principle, if we have our hearts set on survival, we need to take the warnings seriously, do our homework and figure out exactly what we must do to assure our cosmic survival.

We must take into account the psychological factors that will inspire to action, as well as the shape of a global campaign that will sell this vision.

Currently I am engaged in building a space program in the virtual world, like a 4-Dimensional web site, where people can mobilise for action globally, as well as act locally.

It is a tough call to sell the space option, as everyone is gazing into the coal mines looking for diamonds, instead of into space and seeing the stars.

If we had lifted our eyes to the stars in the 1970s and begun building solar power stations in space, as was then possible, we could have kept a safe Earth.

The carbon energy industries won that debate and so all eyes, including conservationists, became locked on the coal mines and oil wells.

All that energy should have been used to lift our game beyond Earth, but, we blew it big time.

Now we must face the music and get back to the future, while we still have time to take action to secure our survival.

There will be massive geo-engineering projects costing many billions of dollars, such as pumping sulphur into the upper atmosphere that will make the skies white, but these pitched gambits will not work.

In a sense, Nature was in the process of giving birth to life beyond Earth, but the foetus didn't want to leave the womb and now Mother Nature is going into stillbirth.

Radical surgery is urgently required to save both Mother and child.

Kim, I try to be a realist in these arguments despite my desire to chase the great dreams of what 'may' be achievable. Unfortunately we here in Australia have an opportunity for education and greater awareness of what is happening in the world around us. But probably 90% of the population of the World and probably the vast majority of people living here, are not in that position and are too tied up in just surviving, or are caught up myopically in their immediate world only or some belief system that assumes our God given right to exploit and propogate.

Unfortunately, and this has been addressed infinitum on other 'Conversation' forums, a fundamental requirement of our survival will depend upon a willingness to severely reduce population. Despite the wonders of our science in continuously finding ways to address food and water issues, there is coming a potential 'Soylent Green' point where we may have to start harvesting people for food to maintain our present population growth...and dont laugh...values change depending upon necessity. As long as we have a leadership that continues to believe that 'human ingenuity has met the challenges in the past and will continue to do so in future', we are heading for a major fall.

Your suggestion about moving into space attracts me given my amateur astronomical background, but realistically the cost of sending even a few thousand people up there would send nations broke, given the cost of getting people up there in the first place and then sustaining them in Earth like conditions. Unless the scientific, industrial and political decision makers invest heavily in finding some way of getting people up there cheaply and in massive numbers, such as the development of space elevators proposed initially be scifi writers and increasingly being considered in the serious scientific world, we are doomed to an increasinlg unsustainable population.

Personally, and realistically, I can see a major fall coming before 2100..fortunately for me I wont be alive to see it, unless the scientific world does develop a means of dramatcially extending life, which would increase population pressure even further ( I dont doubt that such a discovery will be made in a few decades but I wonder at its value).

No Kim. We will blunder along myopically as a species, despite an increasing number of people such as yourself screaming on the roof tops to change, New ways of developping fuel will appear such as the bacterially stimulated ethanol. New super strains of cereal crops will be developped able to exist in many climates. Improved food from fauna will be discovered or created. But in the end it will reach a point where it all breaks down. Possibly the cause will be a virulent crop disease such as that described in John Christopher's Death of Grass or a fast acting viral complaint that wipes out much of the human population such as described in George Stewart's 1948 novel Earth Abides, or perhaps something that affects much of our food source fauna.

I remember reading an article about the first collapse of much of the Mediterranian civilisation about 4000 years ago, partly brought about by a proportionate failure of the yearly Nile floods. The Nile still flooded but not enough to meet the civilasation that had developped there, and the system collapsed. Consequently the population dropped by as much as 90%, parents were eating their children to survive and the scientific wonders that had built the pyramids and sphynx etc were lost. It took centuries to re-establish that civilisation and others dependent upon it. If it happens to us, it may take us hundreds even thousands of years to recover to something like the 20th century, and then without the fuel resourses we relied on. At worst, if the cyclic Ice Age returns, we're back to the neolithic.

David, thanks for explaining. I learned a lot about potential alternatives to emissions trading schemes.

But can you discuss why ETS seem to be the favoured instrument worldwide? I don't understand why ETS seem to be first choice if FFCT are more effective. What are the barriers to a fossil fuel consumption tax -- beyond what Mark has provided?..

Hi David,

I'm working through the CEDA papers and haven't finished yet - but thank you very much for pointing me at them. I recommend others read them too http://www.ceda.com.au/media/121695/a%20taxing%20debate%20-%20the%20forgotten%20issues%20of%20climate%20policy.pdf

I'm not yet entirely persuaded but I can see they make some very valid arguments about the benefits of carbon consumption tax vs a carbon production tax - and I do like the way a carbon consumption tax addresses the export/import problem and thus means australia's competitivness is not under any threat, alomost regardless of what the rest of the world might do.

I wonder about the political realities of it though - and if it IS a good idea (still exploring) how the public discourse might be periusaded to consider it as a better alternative

Thanks Mark.

Elsewhere on this page, Yuri Pannikin asks for my opinion on how and why ETS came to be preferred to Pigovian consumption taxes. My reply, starting with "Thanks Yuri, an ETS may well be the preferred approach ..." points out that spruikers for emission trading got in the ears of "progressive" leaders such as Tony Blair and Kevin Rudd from the very start, so that the Stern and Garnaut Reports didn't even consider consumption taxes.

Garnaut's silence on the preferred carbon pricing scheme has been nothing if not studious; the only public statement I've ever heard him give was in response to and ABC radio interview, when he was directly asked why an ETS is preferable to a consumption tax.

In reply, Prof Garnaut view was that it should be possible to design an ETS that is as effective as a consumption tax; I understand Prof Garnaut's background includes diplomacy.

I don't think the ALP could turn around on this issue, and I'm not sure that an Abbott-led Opposition could credibly change their tune to that extent. (My guess is that Abbott was elected leader only to inflict maximum damage on the Government, that they'll swap him out for a more appropriate candidate for PM closer to the next election; I assume he's been briefed on this.)

Regarding public discourse, I've been arguing for consumption taxation in preference to emission trading on this site (theconversation.edu.au), at abc.net.au/environment, abc.net.au/unleashed, and even climatespectator.com.au (I think the editor at that site, Tristan Edis, formerly of the Grattan Institute, may be seeing some of the practical difficulties of ETS's).

Hi David, yes I read your reply to Yuri. I can see you are quite cyncical (justifiably perhaps?) about the politics of this issue and the finance sector.

Regardless as I work through the CEDA papers I am becoming more and more persuaded that a carbon consumption tax may well be the superior option. I guess we can only hope that the debate and public discourse about this topic matures both locallty and globally to enable this approach to be properly explored and understood. Cheers

If our amazing civilization Ron,

should slip and slide into the night of a Dark Age, or a New Stone Age, there is a very high probability that there will not be another Renaissance, let alone any future crack at securing a confident survival presence beyond Earth.

This is not just because we have already taken all the easily mined resources, or depleted key rare minerals, but because the Earth changes that we have brought on by burning carbon fossil fuel too long has filled the biosphere with carbon dioxide that is causing changes in plant biology, ocean chemistry and changing weather patterns, that evolution cannot replace the number of species that will be driven into extinction.

James Hansen and others fear that this blow to the living Earth will lead to a runaway greenhouse effect, which will be accelerated by the release of naturally stored greenhouse gases in Arctic permafrost, ocean floor methane clathrates, drying soils and dying rainforests.

As the Sun is now 35 percent hotter than at its birth of our star 4.5 billion years ago and is steadily ageing toward becoming a red giant, when it will expand to the orbit of the Earth, there is less slack in the planet's life-support systems to maintain the current environment. As a consequence, we run the risk of causing a sudden shift to a permanently hotter environment, that may only serve to bring on the Venus syndrome, where the oceans will be lost entirely.

This is, potentially, our legacy in the cosmos, especially if we begin to slide economically and lose our grasp on space options.

In the stark light of current trends, we face potential extinction and take all of Nature with us.

What right do we have to do this?

We cannot say that the process has not begun. We are already losing species like life is going out of fashion and is the Arctic region not getting steadily warmer?

If we can face the brutal truth of our predicament and apply the precautionary principle, then we may do better than the denizens of Easter Island, if we act swiftly.

It is something of a shock to us all that Earth changes have come on so rabidly. This may force us to wonder, is this the reason for the Great Silence from the stars, why we have found no evidence of ET.

If we survive, we may find the evidence one day, on Venus-like planets and see the tragedy of failed civilizations, of failed species, of failed life.

Nicholas Stern describes climate change as an economic failure. Should we stop there? Is our failure written on the hide and bark of every species irreversibly sent into extinction?

We have totally failed to keep a safe planet. Who do we roost the failure home to?

All politicians? All academics? All conservationists? The carbon energy industry?

We must each shoulder the blame of this awesome failure and equally the potential for a solution.

We can each make our investigation into the cause of this failure.

My investigations revealed that it was our failure to use fossil carbon fuel in the 1970s and 1980s to make the transition from an Earth-trapped carbon economy to a space liberated solar civilization.

We would now have safe energy a'plenty and industry beyond Earth and orbital cities and islands being built and be preparing for the first stellar feats of exploration.

Instead, we are stuck in the arms of a monstrous failure.

So, do we keep stumbling down the rocky road of this failure, hoping the monster that we have created from the carbon of dead life will love us? It will love us alright. It will love us into death.

If our preference is life, survival and a creative future, then I suggest that we must direct all our energy toward building solar power stations in space, so that we will secure a confident survival presence beyond Earth, from where we will be in a position to solve any problem on Earth.

Our civilization is build on energy and energy is the key to saving it.

This would not be a large initial human migration, but a few workers with many robots and automated systems. Many automated systems could be controlled from Earth.

As the space environment is made safe for human populations, numbers can increase.

This is a basic survival matter, not a cost issue. Without survival, there is total loss.

With cosmic survival beyond Earth, there is a bonanza waiting that will deliver an infinite return on the investment.

The only thing standing between us and survival, will be our failure to imagine what we should do.

It is the mental cage of fear that traps us and breaking free of fear is liberation.

We can liberate life from Earth and in so doing, win our cosmic survival.

Wishing all well.

Kim Peart

http://www.islandearth.com.au/

I agree with much of what you say Kim, though I think with your mention of the Sun being 35% hotter than when Earth first formed and some of those other long term issues, I doubt that they will have much impact on humanity even in the long term because you are talking about processes that change very slowly and will take hundreds or millions if not one or two billions of years to seriously impact on Earths life ( given the average span of specific lifeform species on this planet, humans as we know them will probably be extinct at best in a million years). Life has a tendency as I suspect Lovelock suggested, of adapting the climate to suit itself. An increaased temperature will only cause a change in the nature of the life that lives here and if there is extensive die off, new niches for biologically better suited lifeforms will replace them.

Sure CO2 levels will be up, but that has happened many times before and has not proceeded to a cascade effect like on Venus. Venus went rogue because of many factors that have not occurred on Earth and will not in the forseeable future. Those factors are that it is 1/3 of the way closer to the sun thereby significantly increasing insolation. It has virtually no magnetic field to protect its atmosphere and it has virtually no day and night to speak of....extremely slow rotation. Combined this led to a break down of water molecules and loss of most of is hydrogen into space, so its a dry planet. Without water, there is no solvent to capture CO2 coming from its extensive volcanic activity and therefore no way, without life and water to lock the CO2 into the ground. It may have about the same quantity of CO2 in its system, but most of it along with sulphuric acid stays in the atmopshere.

Though Earths oceans may reach a saturation level with CO2, the water remains and over a few thousands of years the CO2 finally bleaches out and into the crust.

No I dont think the problem is about life continuing on this planet...we may cause a great die off of species, but life is very tenacious as has been recently discovered in many extreme biosystems. It will survive, even if reduced to a bacterial level and then start again filling the available niches. May take tens of millions of years but it will happen.

The problem is with humanity and whether it can survive in its present form. The minerals in some form will still exists...they dont disappear, they're just changed into other forms. Its the fuel sources we'll struggle with if our civilization collapses too far. If the next Ice Age does overcome global warming, humanity's next chance at civilisation will be about 90000 years away and that civilisation will probably not have a fuel sources sufficient to achieve our present level of sophistication. Further that length of time is sufficient to cause some small variations in humanity's biological makeup, which might also affect our aspirations, our breeding capacity, longevity etc. It is humanity's survival as a potentially space faring creature that is at risk, and that opportunity may never come again. Humanity will probably survive after a huge die off of its population (I'd say if the Ice Age comes, 5-10 billion people will become no more than one or two million or so world wide...about the capacity for nomadic tribe lifestyles), but it may no longer have the capacity to achieve more than a pre-industrial society again when the opportuities again present themselves..

There are many disasters that can strike the planet Ron,

such as a mountain from space, or the collapse of a volcanic peak in the Canary Islands, or a solar blast from the Sun, or a super volcano erupting.

It is so pointless to put our civilization at risk unnecessarily, when with just a little effort we can assure our cosmic survival, the cost of which will be covered by energy from the Sun in space alone.

The concern with the warming Sun is not how slowly it is warming, but that our planet's life-support systems has kept the temperature in a steady range over a very long period of time. If we upset the balance, we are asking for trouble and causing strife at a rather criminal level.

The concern with Earth changes is that they are happening too fast for evolution to keep pace with, thus opening the way for great tears in the planets ecological fabric, that will affect us.

The concern with ocean acidification, happening so fast, is the current warning that it can affect the global food chain by dissolving shell and bone. Along with growing dead zones, I read that there is the potential for giant algal blooms that release toxic hydrogen sulphide gas that can kill life on land and destroy the ozone layer.

When I look at all this, I ask why are we so slow to awaken, when we know that with enough energy we can extract excess carbon from the air and sea, avoid the currently predicted outcomes and win back a safe Earth.

That level of energy can only come from solar power stations in space. Would that be a good direction for our resource bonanza, a vision that could inspire both citizens and miners to strive together with a shared vision for our future, that will also open the way beyond Earth, increase our survival hopes and offer unlimited creative opportunities for all Earth's children.

I wonder what we are waiting for. We seem hell-bend on gambling with our fate when the stakes are rather high.

Do we need to ask the basic question: whether we would like the liberty of a star-faring civilization, or surrender into the prospect of a New Stone Age, should we survive?

Why gamble with life?

Kim Peart

http://www.islandearth.com.au/

Yep, that'd be nice. But did you read here in the Conversation here the other day that Australia sits with the "Other European" grouping at the United Nations - not Asia. How shocking is that?... still flying that old White Australian flag ... a colonial outpost on the edge of "foreign parts".

I actually can't see us as playing anything other than a nagging aunt in Asia while we are off to one side like this... an Aunt twice removed.

We have to decide where we live, where our interests and futures lie - not just this nostalgic notion of a self-appointed "sophisticated" democratic bastion... fighting the good fight ...bringing light to our neighbours. It gets more wrong by the minute and was always, always an insult.

I think it's a pity that this discourse is often framed as an either or choice. Not that you did that specifically Peter and I take your point about the signal that sends - but we need to resist the desire of others to put us in a "box" that neatly labels us.

We need to carve out our own indepdendent identity - perhaps as a model for what a world not divided by partisan ethnicity and nationality looks like (not that we have achieved that yet but there are some good points to celebrate)

Geographically we are in the same time zone as asia and are (collectively) our largest trading partners. More than 8% (and growing) of our Aussies have an ethnic background that is "Asian". Of course to "lump" asia together as one is a mistake (as I'm sure you realise).

Our history is predominantly anglo-celtic and much of our culture dervices from there but has been shaped by us and by the immigration from around the world since settlement.

We need to embrace both - not to identify with a geopolitical bloc. So Chris's comments, whilst idealistic perhaps - seems a good place to start from

Ah ... a European country then ... like Austria but with an extra syllable.

It's about where our future lies I reckon ... hooked into the fastest growing most dynamic and innovative region in the world - or bolted to a declining US empire and a fading European history - based on skin colour and some notion of a "shared" cultural heritage.

Twaddle I reckon. I'm Irish a few fathers and mothers back. I'm militantly disinterested in what passes for "European culture"... too much history - not enough future.

Anyway - not really worth an argument - history will decide it. Long as we stop trying to influence or lecture the locals while we maintain our none too discreet aloofness and implicit superiority.

A generation or two ago we aspired to independence. Is that too big a word for modern minds?

Australia is neither Asian nor European - nor American nor African, for that matter.

As to languages, there is generally more call for European languages than Asian in my work. Again, try not to get swept up in sentimental notions of what "should" be, or assumptions as to what the situation is.

Independence goes without saying John - let's just assume that's a given and that silly little business in the top corner of the flag is replaced by something more relevant.

But I don't see identifying ourselves as a country in Asia is any threat or diminution of our independence... just a statement of geographical and economic fact.

The point of my initial contribution on this issue is that by sitting and siting ourselves with "Other Europe" in the UN we seek to distinguish ourselves both culturally and politically from our neighbours - and while we do so we remain a little European outpost on the edge of the Asian hordes. And that is how they see us. And how we see ourselves, apparently. At least for the time being.

In general, politicians are led by the people, not the other way around.

Witness their craven obeisance to opinion polls.

As well, though, politicians will turn to an idea far faster if we present it as workable strategy and not merely as feelgood aspiration.