Like Quadrant and The Bulletin, The Australian preaches to its converted and not many else. There are a lot better things to do than worry about the contents of their echo chamber.

Don’t get me wrong, I do not doubt the current scientific consensus supporting anthropogenic climate change and the role of gases such as carbon dioxide in it. If there was overwhelming evidence to the contrary I would no longer support the theory however that has yet to occur.

I think you have read a bit too far into the meaning of my comments and hence my views.

“B. The cost of inaction is widely recognised by far more qualified people than you, me, Andrew Bartlett or anyone who works at the Australian as far higher than the cost of action.”

If the modeling and statistics say so (and they do), I agree with you entirely.

“You are inferring that an ETS is put in place for no positive reason whatsoever.”

I am not a fan of the ETS simply because I feel we could do a similar job without it (if there was more of a political and economic push to do so). This would involve massive investment in geothermal, wind, solar, hydro and nuclear over a period of 30 or so years.

Since that is not really realistic in Australia (I am a pragmatist), I support the goal of the ETS but ideally I would have preferred to see society wean itself off fossil fuels by the sheer economics of supply and demand as opposed to a tax. The problem is that for one reason or another there has not been a viable alternative to fossil fuels explored in Australia especially and to a lesser extent around the world. This means my ideal vision would not function effectively.

A. there are two questions – the financial crisis is completely separate and confuses things.
B. The cost of inaction is widely recognised by far more qualified people than you, me, Andrew Bartlett or anyone who works at the Australian as far higher than the cost of action.

You are inferring that an ETS is put in place for no positive reason whatsoever.

I am not so sure what is entirely wrong with the Newspoll question. I feel the results accurately show a refocus on the economy, and rightfully so.

The proposed question style highlighted on the link you provided is even worse in my opinion:

“On one hand the carbon pollution reduction scheme will increase the cost of petrol, electricity and gas. On the other hand the scheme will make the big polluters take responsibility for the damage they are doing to our environment and it will safeguard our children’s future. Taking both of these things into account do you think the Federal Government should speed up or delay the introduction of the carbon pollution reduction scheme?”

There is quite a bit of hyperbole in that question, for example: “safeguard our children’s future”. That is exaggeration and push polling to say the least. The fact that it will increase energy prices is an absolutely known fact, another factual statement is that it will put a price on emissions. To push the possible connection between the ETS and reducing damage to the environment as well as safeguarding our children’s future is not appropriate for gaining an unbiased opinion through polling.