carantoc, the rate of change is exactly the problem..... species become extinct because they need 1 million years to evolve. the current rate of change is more in the 100 years ball park i believe.
anyways i'm not the expert. as i've written several times all the information from the expertts is there to be read. csiro for eg, nasa website, the list is very long.
the argument about the details of the carbon tax i'm staying out of at this stage. i think a lot of people use the carbon tax debate as a smkoke screen because ultimatley their political bias won't allow them to even accept global warming is man made. at that point the debate becomes a moot point.
i do believe though that the market is not responsible enough to deal with the issues now and in the future. market need regulation unfortunately to keep them honest. just look at the gfc.
that's the balancing point really, enough regulation to have an effect but still with enough freedom to allow enterprise.
reality is though, whether labor or coalition they will introduce a carbon tax.
edit, i forgot to answer your other question. above what?
figures i've read are above average. some figures are over an 800,000 year period, other shorter periods. i think it was the carbon dioxide ppm that is higher than anytime over the last 800,000 years. but i'd need to check.
Or because some American borrowed more than they could repay, and when it all went wrong they called it a GFC and some Aussie politician who didn't know any better panicked, and built a desal plant because everybody else was and it meant they could be remembered for building something great and not for being a bent polly, and they didn't have to justify the cost because spending more than you could afford was said to be the way out of the disaster that occured when too many people spent more than they could afford.
of course there are those who wish to cling to the fantasy that the official
government theory on global warming is actually true, so they can sleep at night in
their little dream-based world,
where their government takes good care of them, will continue to attack what
they don't understand or more appropriately said they don't want to understand.
@ carantoc,
there is so much to answer in your comments, your question is extremely broad and essentially you are asking me to validate 60 years of research on an internet forum.
i can't possibly do that, i have confidence that i am understanding of the data commonly available but i am not the person who you should be turning to seeking a definitive answer on the intricacies of climate change, i'm not the expert. reality is you should do what i did, look to the experts and seek their opinion. all of the information, data, graphs etc are on relevant websites. and the relevant website (which i quoted) are saying yes to both climate change and mans impact. personally, i see what i believe are changes to the climate. i believe the information i read from leading scientific bodies and i can fully understand that we as a species are destroying our planet. even on a professional level my work is being redefined due to environmental considerations and regulations.
as for graphs and statistics -nasa site has loads.... climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/
more figures on the csiro site -
www.csiro.au/resources/Humans-Changing-Climate--ci_pageNo-1.html
epa graphs
www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/pastcc_fig1.html
the 2nd part of your question relates to the tax. again, if you don't believe climate change and man's part in that then there's no point having the discussion. one must come before the other or you will simply be pondering how to fix a problem you believe doesn't exist. i guess that being the case your solution will be quite different to someone that does accept the problem.
but it should be noted that the eu is on target to achieve reductions by 2050 and is now talking of achieving 80% reductions which is massive.
all of the details are here. cleantechnica.com/2011/03/10/eu-met-2012-goals-on-track-for-2020-can-cut-emissions-80-by-2050/
the eu is leading the world and has a working system that includes taxes, carbon prices etc. until the labor party outlines their plans we cannot compare.
now,
i could turn the whole argument around and invite the skeptics to answer. (however blogs, political parties and discredited scientists with false quotes are not accepted as evidence.)
so,
prove to me why an environment tax won't work.
prove to me that climate change and man have no connection and the the worlds scientific experts are wrong.
i see, 
i pointed out the oxymoron of number one already. just pretend that a green world is a good world and look at the eu who experienced acid rain and then did something.
and number 2 all you have given is your opinion.
yes, i made question 1 simpler. i didn't change the crux of the question.
and again, no 2. that still doesn't answer the question but raises some interesting conspiracy topics. 
Could I just add, The taxation part of the carbon tax is the most boring and straight forward . The spending part of the tax is where the interest is. So the big polluters get taxed, some will add the tax on to their end user price others may opt to reduce their inbuilt carbon dioxide emissions(how much CO2 it takes to manufacture the widget)and thus reduce the price of the finished widget. The end user price will end up reflecting the lower price of the widget. So the consumer ends up with a choice...... the higher priced / high CO2 product or the lower priced/ lower carbon product. OK, so there we have an incentive for energy intense manufacturers to reduce their carbon footprint and reduce the amount of tax paid, and therefore reduce the price of their product in comparison to the other manufacturers. SO, from there that gives us the opportunity to reduce our emissions through a market mechanism, so no government picking winners or such like. There are some BIG possibilities here: the field of alternative energy generation/storage will suddenly become more viable as companies and individuals seek lower cost/ lower emission power and it will give us the ethical weight or moral high ground to say to our trading partners overseas"look what we've done, follow our lead " or in the case of India and China, we need you to produce at a lower carbon level (though India is implementing a price on the amount of coal burnt right now). So, to say a carbon tax will do nothing is just wrong, apart from the benefits I've already mentioned it will focus the minds of the citizens on doing a good thing for themselves and the world as a whole.
@ pweedas, yeah i agree. but your comments are not what an environment tax is about.
it is about making alternatives more affordable in the short term.
@ log man. i agree
The environmet tax is a distraction from the real issue because no matter what the final decision is, it will make no difference.
funny thing about this thread...
petermac33 is the only one who is making any sense.
you idiots would be lining up to buy licences to breath if they told you it would save the planet.
@ pweedas, it seems to be making a difference in the eu.
so what is the real issue?
^^^^ Gestalt
The only difference it's making in the eu is that it's making people feel good about their high energy useage. Same as washing out dog food tins makes us feel we are saving the planet because we recycle.
Give people a little bit of pain so that they can believe they are doing their bit to save the planet.
If the eu reduces their energy use by 20% (and they haven't but say they did,) then this would be totally negated within 2 years by the increasing energy use of China and/or India.
So the "real issue" as I keep saying (writing) is to put some meaningful effort into finding a long term solution to providing cheap and clean energy for the world.
This can be financed by your carbon tax or environment tax or your cigarette tax or any tax you like, but it has to be done.
You can see what science can accomplish when given the incentives to do so by looking at the huge advances in technology whenever we need a better way to blow each other off the planet.
At the start of world war 2 we had wood and canvas aeroplanes that could barely fly 300 miles, and oversized firecrackers for bombs.
Six years later we had metal airliners that could fly 2000 miles and drop atomic bombs that could blow away whole cities. This was all possible due to government paid and directed science.
Plus jet engines and misiles that we could throw across continents at those we didn't like.
And now, when we are faced with "the greatest moral challenge of our time", our action is,... to invest $43 billion of taxpayers money in a high speed porn network.
Hang on a sec. The penny just dropped.
So we want to use our present intelligence for the good of humans in the longterm ie. keep planet earth in a reasonable state for our grandchildren to survive on?
We do this by encouraging renewable energy (in some way) from the wind and the sun to power industry, offices and our homes. Yes?
So would this mean that when energy is being produced at its maximum, workplaces will then be working at their full potential and will have to be fully staffed at those times?
So when the seabreeze starts cracking and the sun is up we will all have to drop what we would otherwise be doing and go in to work straight away 
Permission granted Cisco. I have had a quick think about it. You can use the above post for tomorrow's National party disinformation chain email.
Spread the concern across the political spectrum. Make sure it circulates widely to all wind watersport enthusiasts.
very good... and to top it up inflation will go up and the bank will have a very good excuse, all made up to increase the interrest rate. And it will work... high interrest, slow building industry less construction, more ppl staying home unemployed, less driving less carbon.......... now I see how it works![}:)]
I dont know if the maths are correct but
"if the government puts a $25 dollar a tonne price on carbon.....Petrol has a specific gravity of 0.74 and contains 620 grams of carbon. The amount of carbon in a litre of petrol should attract a tax of about 1.6 cent."
