ETS = "Socialism by Stealth"

and as such should be resisted at every opportunity because, as we all know,

"Socialism" is just another name for "Fraud".

I agree with Bruce and the others who advocate a simple tax system. Carbon trading is already being tried in Europe, and has proven to be another tax funded source of revenue for polluters, and done nothing to reduce emissions.
As to renewable energy being of necessity more expensive, I see no valid reason for this from an engineering point of view. The mechanical infrastructure of a windfarm need be no more elaborate or expensive than an oil well, with lower transport costs. Also as commodities inevitably grow more scarce, the price has to rise; something that will never happen to wind.
Remember also that the recent spike in fuel prices was not due to an interruption or restriction of supply, or an increase in demand. It was largely due to the fact that a lot of those barrels of oil were traded up to 47 times, between the well and the bowser.
If you want to make renewable energy cheap and affordable, just keep the free traders away from it.

'Secondly, adopt the motor vehicle emission and mileage standards currently in place for California - including the "gas guzzler tax".'

Is that the same California that has to issue IOUs to its public servants because it can no longer pay their salaries? The same California that is going bankrupt because its loony citizens have had power handed to them on a platter and can't cope with it? (The same California, incidentally, that voted to repeal its gay marriage laws?)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/jobs-terminated-as-california-goes-bankrupt-1624892.html

What a great role model! Yes, let's copy California! Nothing could possibly go wrong!

The argument that a ETS would subsidise renewables to the point that they would become a fait accompli and remove any incentive to improve efficiency is economically baseless. Competition amongst the various forms of renewable energy for market share will ensure innovation, as has driven the prices of solar, wind and other renewables over the past decade. An ETS is not an alternative solution to efficiency and innovation, it gives economic incentive to harbour such a solution.

While the US $180 per tonne (only be about US $107 if the figure is nominal) would create a significant taxation burden, the increase in government revenue would allow reduction of income and other taxes calibrated to maintain a relatively progressive taxation system as is current.

Hay, Martin, that sounds like a damned good idea to me.

I've got quite a bit of very good rope, I've been saving ever since I sold the yacht. I have been looking for some really worthwhile use for it. That sounds like the best possable use for any rope.

Spot on Juel. An ETS is a big stick as first response without any carrot being dangled in front of us at all. Trading in carbon default swaps, derivative forestry futures, shares in great southern, timbercorp, etc, will bring about the next Global Financial crisis before doing anything about co2, etc.

Why cant we have lower rates of corporate taxation for "Good Corporate Citizens" who satisfy a standard set for their industry to aspire to as a first response. Then gradually increase the standard rates of corporate taxation for those businesses that do not aspire to higher standards in all they do, as well as polluting.