Bravo Chris! Finally someone saying quite succinctly "the emperor is not wearing clothes". Is anyone taking bets on how long it will be before Juliar floats the idea of an FTS?

I agree that international trading of carbon credits is an invitation to fraud. For example Norway pays Bolivia not to raze a certain acreage of forests so the Bolivians chopped down and burned the adjoining forests at a faster rate. Australia is in the rare position that domestic CO2 of 540 million tonnes a year is less than CO2 from exported coal and LNG, likely to be over 600 m.t.. Therefore I think Australia should carbon tax fossil fuel exports. The government of the importing country can ask for a carbon tax refund to be paid into a suitable green program. The other countries don't really have many choices of reliable alternative supply so they may go along with it. It hurts us financially as well as them if they then reduce coal imports. However the planet benefits as a whole. *

The other perspective is equity; fat people denying food to the starving. Australians emit 20 tonnes of CO2 a year per man, woman and child whereas for other countries the figure is more like 7 tonnes. We are asking them to cut back?

* The UK just had its warmest ever April. Must be the cooling trend.

I agree, especially with Taswegian, having wondered who pays EFT on fossil fuel exports, particularly all the coal in the trains passing through Toowoomba. Does the mining company pay, the Australian govt. or the country receiving the fossil fuel?

A carbon tax or an ETS, as policies, have so many problems that it is difficult to know where to start. The problem Taswegian pointed to is just the start, when it comes to international trading. Although I'm no admirer of the author's analogies he's probably right that if you actually want to reduce carbon emissions, as opposed to grandstand for the green lobby, then there are easier, more effective ways to do it.

Perhaps legislative sanctions on major power generators?

However, with the debate winding down and the public switching off in droves, when (perhaps if) the government dumps its carbon tax proposal, that may well be the last we will hear of any big-ticket efforts to control emissions in Aus.

A few comments:

1. Opinions about climate change will inevitably colour views on a carbon tax or an ETS. If you accept the scientific view, which I do, then the need for every country to dramatically reduce its emissions is clear and will happen - the only question is one of timing.

2. A carbon tax or ETS are not about just changing people's behaviour. The main motivator is to change polluters behaviour. The way both work is to provide a financial incentive to polluters to change their behaviour. In the case of energy providers this is done by making polluting energy production (like coal fired power stations) more and more expensive until it actually becomes cheaper to switch to renewable energy where no carbon tax needs to be paid and no pollution permits need to be purchased. For energy users the incentive is to use energy more efficiently.

3. An ETS is theoretically preferable since it gives Government the power to regulate the amount of pollution allowed each year by restricting the number of permits available. The market then works out how best to achieve the reduction. Generally the free market is much better at this than Governments which have an extremely poor record at picking "winners". I agree that trading permits outside of the home country does not seem the way to go.

4. The other argument that is advanced is why should Australia reduce emissions when there is no world agreement. Apart from the moral argument there is the self-interest argument. The forces of climate change will drive more and more extreme weather, and public opinion will at some point drive politicians to act dramatically to cut CO2 emissions. This could be next year or more likely within the next 10 years. In addition technological advancement and increasing carbon taxes will act together at some point to make renewable energy cheaper than fossil fuels. You can also throw into the mix peak oil if you wish. Doesn't it make sense for Australia to start preparing now for this new world? I think the answer is obvious.....

It is fanciful to claim that "The forces of climate change will drive more and more extreme weather...". Not even warmist scientists give that much credence.

"In addition technological advancement and increasing carbon taxes will act together at some point to make renewable energy cheaper than fossil fuels. "

Given that wind energy is unreliable, inefficient and at least three times more expensive than, and solar energy is unreliable, inefficient and at least ten times more expensive than, coal-fired energy, it is going to take generations for technological advancement to make such renewable energy competitive, if at all.

It is economic folly -- in fact, draconian -- to use carbon taxes and ETS schemes to penalise coal-fired energy generation so as to equilibrate its price with wind and solar energy prices.

There is no scientific or economic justification for levying those taxes. Australia is going to pay dearly indeed for the Government's folly of implementing those taxes purely for the purpose of appeasing the Greens