"In agreement with Lord Deben, we should do much more to lower greenhouse gas emissions. After all, as the world's population grows and more industry output results, it makes sense for all societies to encourage greater efficiency and innovation in terms of energy use."

Sure: now explain what the second sentence has to do with the first.

But this kind of boilerplate forelock-tugging to the AGW theory is actually a good thing; like the 'Welcome to Country' in school ceremonies, it keeps the radicals quiet and allows ordinary people to get on with their business unmolested.

Some people will become extremely rich in trading on nothing but thin air.

The rest of us mugs will be the ones helping them become rich.

"Prime Minister Gillard and others may delude themselves that Australia's carbon tax will make an important difference. "

Really? But people who oppose it are "extremists" and "deniers" aren't they? I can't see the reason for you to include the "extremists" comment, unless it's to underline your intolerance of fellow Australians?

This is justification for Tony Abbot to be lobbied to become an activist, which he will not do of course, but he is a politician and will make the right noises so as not to cruel his chances.

Are you concerned that without Tony becoming an alarmist and CO2 activist, that whole sections of the community (>50% now and growing) have an anchor to harness their support to?

Whether you respect the people who protested or not, the point is they have that right .. while the world is stunned that a political activist group, who claim to be independent, actually had a gathering demanding a tax .. you can't call that a protest can you?

Calling them names will alienate them, but then again they are heretics and it's difficult for a believer to control themselves when confronted by non believers isn't it?

Let's face it, the populace will pay the tax if it comes in and then refuse to do anything else for the environment, because the government has declared they will fix the environment with a tax and wealth redistribution. So why should we lift a finger to do any more

That's the real issue that activists are staring to realize is important. I know a couple of activists (who incidentally deplore my love of motor car sport) who now realize what the natural reaction is to this big new tax, because that's all you're going to get by forcing people to pay it, by paying your propagandists a fortune to sell it .. people resent they have to pay another tax while the government clearly goes on wasting our country's future.

amicus,

I am all for all Australians putting their points forward. I want an extensive debate until the next election where the Australian people can decide the fate of the carbon tax.

Main focus of article, however, was to argue that carbon tax by itself will achieve very little as gains made in wealthy naitons from cuts to emissions will be more than offset by higher emissions in developing nations.

While not necessarily agreeing with your conclusions, Chris, I think that you have have made a useful contribution to the debate by introducing new data related to "offshoring" of energy consumption.

To extend this data, I refer OLO-ers to the US Energy Information Administration's "International Energy Outlook 2010 - Highlights" (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/highlights.html). Fig. 11 in this document displays 1990-2035 global economic output, population, CO2 emissions, carbon intensity and energy intensity (of economic output).

While much of the world population are low-contributors to emissions, the "economically participating" population is increasing, mainly due to China and India- probably at a rate similar to world population growth.

The graph illustrates the dilemma: While industry is becoming more efficient (thanks to capital intensification, technological change and learning), the "efficiency dividends" are being spent on increased consumption- both by existing economic participants and by an increasing number of new economic entrants. It's akin to spending the part of one's salary that is saved by lowered mortgage interest rates on a new 50-inch plasma- and then complaining that one's bank-balance is not increasing. The "new TV" is part of our increased standard of living brought about by consuming our efficiency savings. That's how we got here.

So I fear that both Abbott and Gillard's (and the rest of the world's) policies will not work to reduce CO2 levels, unless they withdraw from circulation part of the efficiency dividend- this means increased taxes to achieve budget surpluses. Robert Solow showed that the annual ED is about 2% (half from getting smarter, half from improved technology). 1% would stabilise CO2 outputs. Obviously this wouldn't be popular.

Simply improving the efficiency of present energy generators or consumers or sequestering some of the carbon will not achieve anything if the gains are immediately spent- in fact it may be counterproductive if these measures only serve to shift the carbon use- as Chris has pointed out- from one part of the value chain to another- which in our global economy amounts to "offshoring" the carbon use. China is significantly improving its energy intensity, but re-investing it just as quickly.

Chris I get that, many people though feel exploited by the attempts to use the CO2 scare tactics to beat them into submission on other things, when it is quite clear that emerging countries have no intention of joining the richer nations technology and lifestyle guilt.

We have no choice but to adapt, CO2 activists are wasting an opportunity to move to adapting.

Though it is weakening, the greens failed miserably in NSW, if people REALLY wanted a CO2 tax and an end to Coalition skepticism, then they surely would have all voted green across all of NSW, but they didn't .. the people do not care for the government's message.

There is nothing we can do about people in other countries wanting what we have, and if we give them money, they will get there sooner.

On a debate, no there will be no debate .. the ALP make it quite clear and they are on their favored turf, justifying a tax, this is familiar and comfortable territory, add a fear and scare campaign, and they are in their element. They are loving this, it gives them focus and they love berating the coalition.

It's a folly, but they cannot turn away since it is bred intot hem to oppose the coalition, regardless of reason.