So exactly why are we transitioning to a low emissions economy? So far as I can see, the case that CO2 is bad has not been made at a professional level that would stand detailed cross-examination in a judicial enquiry.

All we have are assertions, supposedly supported by model predictions. However, when uncertainties are applied to the various input variables as in a Monte Carlo analysis, we would find that there is pretty much equal probability of any outcome. The model predictions that suggest unacceptable warming due to increasing CO2 emissions are cherry picked to support a political position, and are not representative of the entire result set.

It is well past time for the science supporting the AGW case to be examined in a proper forum. In fact, calling for such an inquiry into the science would be a way for both Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott to find a way out of the corrosive CO2 tax 'debate' which is proving toxic to all involved.

Nice one Herbert straight out of the "if evolution is true why are there still monkey's playbook.
Global warming science has been gone over in the science literature for the last 40 years but you keep pretending that is hasn't for reasons that can only be for political purposes. Have you ever read a science journal by any chance? What is this proper forum you speak of, perhaps you have a panel of shock jocks and right wing think tank opinion writers in mind.
Back to the article, some simple questions for the Author. What level of investment by power companies has there been to move to low emission tech in the last forty years. It seems to me that the power companies are behaving just like the asbestos companies like Hardies did. Keep producing something you know is bad for us for many years after it was shown to be bad of us because it would hurt their bottom line. If you guys had lead from the front rather then blocked and delayed every step then this would be a far less painful action.

Thankyou Brad; contributions from industry people such as yourself are essential to an informed debate. But the information we need has to clearer and more convincing. You mentioned figures of up to $82 b in electricity generation needed by 2030. The carbon price is precisely to ensure that this investment does not go into high emitting generation and that as much as possible goes into renewables.

Your industry has not provided voters such as me with evidence as why a carbon price is ‘unfair’ or ‘destabilizing to the electricity industry. As Kenny rightly pointed out global warming has been discussed for 40 years and a carbon price 5 years in Australia; there has been adequate warning to investors. The average voters cannot see why ‘asset impairment’ that concerns you (presumably this means polluting coal generation assets won’t be saleable?) is a problem. Of course no-one will want to buy into this type of asset and neither should they. If some coal fired power stations become insolvent while they are still needed, Government will have to intervene to keep them going until they can be replaced.

Your point about maintaining supply during transition is of course a concern. But polluting power stations won’t close down suddenly; they will simply pay the tax and pass on the cost to consumers. The main effect of the C price will be to ensure they are replaced by new clean generation as soon as possible.

I think a carbon price is an essential first condition to early emissions reductions. The customers are out there appliances waiting so somebody has to make money. With problems like demand peaks perhaps electricity resellers can offer pricing plans that discourage overconsumption at certain obvious times like weather over 35C, a kind of cheaper version of a smart grid. It is far from clear that moderate carbon taxes will encourage proven forms of wind and solar without additional subsidies or mandates. Conversely replacing coal fired base load with gas may be a very expensive exercise if gas prices escalate.

Scotland, Germany and Switzerland tell us they can eliminate the need nuclear power but this is yet to be demonstrated. Compounding the problem is that we know coal, oil and gas will all become prohibitively expensive by mid century with or without carbon taxes. I'd think it's also a safe bet that extreme weather will intensify. I believe we have little choice but to go with carbon pricing for a while to see if enough of the needed investment materialises.

Gaunaut wouldn't know a cow pat from a cloud. He came to New England
told farmers they could make as much money out of carbon credits as they would from Wool? Farm kangaroos instead of beef and sheep to cut
methane emissions (just google him and read his nonsense)and our rep
Tony Windsor does not agree that fuel will be included (if they are serious about polluters they have to include that and planes). But it won't change the climate! Carbon trading in EU has not worked to cut emissions, just put up prices. Even the World Bank is now pushing
that carbon trading is failing and if we don't do something the world
will see 3 - 4 C increases. It's a carbon bubble, like the 18th Century South Sea Bubble. And Australia is a willing supporter to aid
the ailing carbon market in EU. Plus the 600 million they have committed to the UN Climate change Fund? The climate change commission report had a disclaimer on page 2. Actually a Vet from
Vietnam wrote a good short letter in the Armidale Express today.

Forget carbon tax, introduce a B......t tax, and the government would
have an enduring economy and revenue. We will be the laughing stock of the world. Now the EU want to charge Qantas carbon tax for flying over Europe. What about their bloody volcanoes interrupting flights.

It seems to me as a non-expert in power generation that the greens and
the government treat, and speak of, the generators as naughty boys
caught making a mess in their room and they need to be punished.

In fact they are a utility service that invested in the game under a
set of rules which are about to be changed. Surely if the governement
thinks the rules now need to be changed then the government must
contribute to that change.

I do not think we will hear any sense out of the government until the
lights go out one evening as the meal has not quite been cooked.
The next morning a fix will be demanded by that night.