The tragedy is that our economy is about to be "decarbonised" whether we like it or not! Peak oil, peak coal and peak gas will be reducing our carbon emissions. The need to move to non-carbon sources of energy is dire, both for climate change reasons AND because the fossil fuels are limited. If we choose to delay in this matter there will be no second chances because once the energy is gone there is literally nothing that you can do without it.

Ben, One of the key characteristics of this contentious debate is the fact that the case for the government’s CO2 tax has become so difficult you are left, like Ross Garnaut, with an ideological assault on opposition proposals.

There will be no open public debate and you know this. We hear you. The science is settled, there is consensus, most serious scientists agree and the case for AGW is proven. Therefore you adopt an assumption close on AGW as a problem and move quickly along to the solution. You are giving us the “Bum’s Rush”.

In truth, what we actually have is only one side of science being promoted which is the IPCC’s single orthodoxy. What is an even greater cheat on the Australian electorates is the term “multi-party” committee. This is somehow intended to promote some sense of bi-partisan support. It is not. The Greens and Independents are of course part of the government and not multi-party at all.

When you and your merry band of cheats can bring yourselves to front up to the Australian people and clearly articulate and openly discuss the “problem”, perhaps you might get a hearing on what you see as the “solution”.

A Kepner/Tregoe analysis of what the government is promoting clearly shows that in the commercial world you would go to gaol for serious fraud. Fortunately for you, you will never face such charges. Unless of course, some enterprising entity starts a class action like the sixteen “Litigation Hold Notices” issued against the EPA in the US.

We are being asked to accept a tax on the basis that it will become an ETS at some future date. As a market mechanism an ETS requires a market. France, Japan, South Korea, China, India, USA, Canada have all declared they will not participate in a replacement for Kyoto. So the question would be, where is this market we are going to trade with? If there is no market, how can we have a market based ETS? More importantly, if no market emerges will we be left with just another tax?

So in essence to get the cost of coal generation to exceed the cheapest of renewable cost, the carbon price needs to be $63/ton.

This does not even take into account the capital cost, or that the renewables still need to be backed up by fossil fuel generation when the wind is low, the biomass is less available, or the sun isn't shining.

A thumb suck would put the required carbon cost to well over $100/ton.

Notable France is the only country in the world to be actually reducing carbon emissions, and this is done through direct action and nuclear power.

Fair dinkum debate on carbon tax or env solutions, keep dreaming?

Co2 levels keep rising, the West passes on polluting activities to Asian economies which have less interest or societal pressure to reduce its own pollution levels, and Aust relies on the export of coal to meet its bills.

The other day in parl: Hockey asks Swan is is true that coal producers in poorer nations will produce more pollution than coal pollutors here. Swan responds by ranting Labor's support for the Australian coal industry and exports; he never even bothers to answer the question.

The debate lacks honesty about the complexity of the situation. Truth is there are just as many good reasons for opposing the carbon tax as supporting it.

Again, I say let the people decide its fate at the next election. As it is, the Coalition's promise to unravel any carbon tax does not deliver any certainty to investors.

I would disagree with shadow minister on one point - a biomass plant shouldn't need any more backup than a coal plant - but I would agree with him that the costs Ben cite are off.

Biomass is only twice as expensive as coal in price per megawatt hour, before all the subsidies? Although Ben's figures are somewhat more credible than activist statements I have seen that actually put wind and biomass as cheaper than coal before the subsidies, the figures still don't seem right.

In any case, is there really a large enough supply of biomass to keep even one, large base load plant going? Doubt it.

Spindoc I will ignore your childish rant about ‘The government should go to jail for fraud” - and France, Germany, Spain, UK IPCC etc; would any of them get to pass go? (gee the jails would be full). As for the viperish insult “you and your merry band of cheats’ – you are in typical form and I’ll say no more about that or we really would revert to a schoolyard exchange of insults.
On a more serious note – there is a public debate; we’re ensuring that happens in these columns and there are several other political blogs doing the same along with ABC and SBS. I agree that it’s a terrible shame it’s not happening in the the Murdoch press e.g. The Australian - which we all know is the lions share of newspaper media - or many shock jock commercial radio and TV stations. I disagree that the sceptic cause if not being promoted; they are doing an ample job. Maybe they’ve been bought off; certainly they have thrown the principles of even handed journalism to the wind. All we see from them is one eyed support for a few sceptics (these are the frauds!) and vilification of qualified climate scientists (I suppose you would say CSIRO are frauds?).
Your other assertion that there’ll never be an international carbon market because a few countries said they don’t want to continue Kyoto is absurd. As if Kyoto was the only possible mechanism for international carbon trading; as if after the Copenhagen disappointment they've all gone home to bed and there’ll be no more negotiations! Sorry Spindoc global warming and its dire consequences won’t go away, much as we’d all like it to.