A carbon tax may certainly be preferably as a means of reducing carbon. The CPRS, unbelievably, had a provision for buying credits overseas, meaning that it would have been entirely ineffective in reducing carbon in Australia or anywhere else. Why anyone thought that it would have any effect beyond creating a market which would have to be operated by well-paid traders is beyond me.
In any case, with any luck the whole issue is dead. Consumers are now beginning to realise they will have to pay for these initiatives, and that will make them electoral poison.

CO2 isn't a pollutant.
I emailed the IPCC. Here is part of their reply. Graham Morris has my email address if you want the whole email.
"On your question about whether CO2 is a pollutant, I can not answer that as I have not found the answer in one of our reports. I know that whether CO2 could be considered as a pollutant under the US Clean Air Act was a controversial issue for many years - and I think that now there was an EPA decision in favor of it and therefore it can now be considered a pollutant according to the Clean Air Act's definition of a pollutant. Perhaps that definition depends on each country's legal definition of a pollutant".
There is no science supporting CO2 as a pollutant. This is a legal (political) definition.

Dear Mr. Carmody, there were so many issues raised with you from your last article and so many questions asked. In reading this article it appears that you have failed to even acknowledge the commentary we provided on OLO, let alone answer any key questions.

You were challenged to demonstrate the business/economic principles behind your conclusions. It was also pointed out that without these you have adopted advocacy over economics.

Your have much personal capitol to lose, as an advocate you will be harshly judged because you have abandoned your economic background.

Why might I ask do you solicit comment on OLO then totally ignore our contributions?

The answer is IMHO, you are a proselytizing advocate

The main opposition to any price on carbon is based on denial of science; ie that there will be no adverse consequences or costs associated with rising atmospheric CO2. This view can only be maintained by disbelieving every report from every institution that studies climate.
That people continue to believe in grand conspiracies rather than believe there could be any serious downside to emissions shows how well the largely manufactured denialist fear and disinformation campaign has worked. 80's, 90's and O10's, each decade the warmest on record, warmer than the preceding one, yet deniers still insist it's "cooling" - a single set of tree ring records from one region says so, so all measures of global surface air temps must be wrong, 18 going on 19 years running of glacier retreat mean nothing, the continuing sea level and ocean heat content rise mean nothing - 47 independent datasets representing the state of climate, that all consistently show warming are conspiratorily contrived to hide the decline in temperatures embodied in that one single set of tree-rings? Sorry but I don't buy it.
Give me real scientists at real scientific institutions practicing real real science and real scepticism and basing their conclusions on a true body of knowledge rather than the selected bits that can be made to appear like proof of something that directly contradicts all the rest.
I personally think practicing climate denial activists are dangerously irresponsible in demanding we dismiss what real science tells us in order to bolster their fantasy belief that multi-gigatonnes of emissions annually are completely harmless.

Spindoc - what are you talking about? The reasoning behind a carbon tax is straightforward and it has been suggested plenty of times by others. To insist on a common sense, equitable approach to reducing carbon - assuming that is what we wnat to do - is hardly worthy of comnment. If you have an objection to a carbon tax then, in a feew sentences, what is it?

Geoff Carmody paper predicates that we all know what is meant by the words “climate” as well as “climate change.” Further there is the implied threat that any change in climate will be deleterious to life, without defining the direction and magnitude of any such change.
I refer to Wikipedia for definition. [Noting at the same time Wikipedia has a strong bias in favour of anthropogenic global warming hysteria.

Definition 1:
Long term statistics of temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, particle counts and so on. Wikipedia gives no indication of statistical methods. Data is sampled usually over a 30 year period. When such a period begins and/or ends appears to me to be arbitrary. Location factors to consider are latitude, terrain and altitude.

Definition 2:
Paleoclimatology or the study of ancient climate patterns based on such surrogates as tree rings, ice cores or sediments inn lake beds.

Definition 3:
Bergon and Spatial Synoptic is based on the concept of air masses. The properties of the air that are considered include air moisture (c= dry or continental, m=maritime etc.); next is the thermal characteristics (T= Tropical, P = Polar etc.) and finally the stability of the air (w=warmer then ground, k= colder then ground)

Definition 4:
Thornwaite method of climate classification is an index based on soil moistutre content, average temperature, average rainfall and average vegetation type.

Definition 5 (Köppen):
This definition is best adapted in my view to human requirements. There are five main types; tropical, dry, mild mid-latitude, cold mid latitude and polar. With numerous subtypes.
>>>>>>

The Perth climate is classified under the Köppen system as Mediterranean; (meaning hot, dry summers and cool wet winters). The question for Dr. Carmody and other AGW believers is what will be the climate of Perth in 5 years, 10 years or a hundred years’ time? Will it be humid subtropical or subarctic etc.

Precise definitions and good scientific and statistical evidence are required before investing in an ETS or carbon tax.