Quite right. Our major trading comeptitors are doing little to nothing about reducing carbon, and efforts by the rest (perhaps with the excdeption of Britain) are ineffectual. Even the much trumpeted Chinese implied price on carbon is really an effiency drive, where the electricity generators are encouraged to use bigger, more efficient power stations (the large for small reference in Carmody's story).

Yet Carmody points out - and there is no reason to doubt him - that the Treasury's modeling of the carbon price effect proably assumes that our major copetitors will do something similar - hence the finding that ther will be very little effect.

Time to face reality. Thre is simply no possibility of reducing global carbon emission to within any limits set by scientists, and the carbon tax is an expensive ideological gesture. The strange part of the debate is that actual carbon levels in the atmosphere may well fall below the levels set out by Garnaut as crucial in the 2007 report, without anyone doing much at all..

The PC's conclusions about the relative efficiency of carbon taxes and emission trading schemes made in its report, 'Carbon Emission Policies in Key Economies', need to be qualified. As its terms of reference did not include reviewing the veracity of anthropogenic global warming 'science' , the PC was forced to assume that climate science is settled, and that there is a need to reduce CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Consequently, its carbon tax/ETS conclusions are hypothetical, and cannot be regarded as justification for the Government's proposed carbon tax policy which lacks scientific and economic justification.

As economist Warwick McKibbin pointed out on ABC Lateline Business, there is a further shortcoming in the Treasury modelling, in that its 'minimal impact on the economy finding' is understood to be based on the erroneous assumption that no unemployment would result from imposition of a carbon tax. In other words, the modelling is too simplistic to have any credibility.

Hi Geoff, the issue of the PC not addressing our competitors is old news on OLO. I must add that I’m not sure if you are formulating an exit strategy, having a bob each way or nailing your colors to the mast. All I know for sure is that we’ve had this conversation before.

This issue is all about the volume, intensity and frequency of the howling from the “commentariat”. I’m still not sure where you sit. Are you being deliberately obtuse, are you confused, are you undecided or are you still trying to determine where your company can make a “buck” out of all this? Given your economic and business credentials, I’m assuming the latter.

The “myth” of exactly what our trading partners and competitors are dong about carbon mitigation is fast crumbling. Many high profile reputations and perhaps companies may well go down the gurgle with it. Will Access Economics be one of those?

The “Bull dust baffles brains” train is due to depart very soon, time to put your money where your mouth is.

spindoc

The 'bulldust baffles brains train' gathered momentum with the coldest northern hemisphere winter in the past 100 years and with our coldest winter start and earliest snows since the 1980's.

The support for global warming in Australia has plummetted to 35% in the latest polls ... watch for it to enter 'rump regions' as temperatures continue with their current trend in Australia.