1) If CO2 is not causing damaging climate change, then it is not a pollutant (crops actually grow better when more CO2 is available). A carbon tax may well end up wasting a staggering amount of resources to reduce something that isn’t a pollutant.

2) There’s a huge difference between a gradual move to alternative energy sources (which is already underway) and a massive, painful and artificial intervention in the economy to avoid an impending disaster.

A carbon tax is a massive cost, resulting in less money for tackling our other problems, including environmental issues such as water use and salinity. The costs to developing countries will be even greater. Deciding the truth or otherwise of the climate catastrophe claims is critical for determining where to spend our limited resources.

I’m happy to note your support of nuclear power, however. While more expensive than coal, it is at least feasible without a carbon tax. Australia is missing a huge opportunity there.

Do you think that humans should:
1) Reduce pollution and care for the environment?
2) Ensure that we don’t exhaust all of the available resources without alternative ways of living?

Everyone, the Secular Party included, is just taking the IPCC’s word on all this. You can do better than that.