Here, here - the economic case for limiting emissions, even assuming that the climate models bear any relation to reality, is shaky at best. Nicholas Stern is in fact almost alone in alledging that the economics of limiting emissions add up.. He may have wone the nobel prize for economics but several other winners of the nobel prize in economics have disagreed with him. We hear about Stern endlessly. We don't hear about the others.
Given the extreme difficulty in reaching any agreement on limiting emissions it is time to dump the whole issue and move on to what we can do, that is if we accept there is a problem in the first place.

This debate is significant only to economists who live in the usual unreality of mainstream economics. It misses three real-world points that make the debate irrelevant.

1. Reducing emissions need not be very expensive, if we combine efficiency (that often saves money) with new energy sources. See McKinsey report www.mckinsey.com/locations/australia_newzealand/knowledge/

2. There is no way our descendants can be vastly (materially) wealthier than us. We are disrupting many Earth systems, not just climate - soils, forests, water, biodiversity, pollinators, chemical pollution, hormone disruptors, etc. If the climate problem disappeared the others would soon bring us down anyway. We must change our system to produce quality of life efficiently by recycling resources and minimising energy use - as the living world does. See for example www.neweconomics.org/gen/z_sys_publicationdetail.aspx?pid=289

3. You don't have to do everything via bureaucracy. Well-managed markets will do it better. Heresy in old-think, but obvious in a complex-systems approach that is far more realistic. See www.geoffdavies.com/economia.html

I think it suffices just to look at the next 20 years without discounting. The prospect of all fossil fuels peaking globally (oil 2008, gas 2015, coal 2030) will have an enormous impact not only on emissions but investment and production. Therefore we will have to decarbonise and conserve like it or not. Revised IPCC projections will need to take this into account as well as some strange climate behaviour.

I feel sorry for young kids of kindergarten age who will have to deal with this as adults. Problems with transport, water supply and food production may be overwhelming. Job prospects may be lousy. Many of the problems of the past decade, both climate related and economic, will be amplified. For that reason alone economic models that project scenarios will be too uncertain to apply discounting techniques. Hopefully we can stumble upon something approaching the least-worst path.

How about no carbon tax at all but reduced corporate taxation for "good corporate citizens" who fulfill a set industry criteria to reduce carbon emissions, recycle, don't emit other pollution, run better corporate governance, have employee share ownership for all staff, reasonable level of Australian ownership and content, etc? That's the carrot, then gradually lift standard corporate tax for those Paul Keating recalcitrants, the stick?

Much as i don't approve of Howard's leadership (worst prime minister ever) during his time they announced phasing out incandescent light bulbs. This is what we need to start doing bit by bit every day, more of the same.

Didn't trading in carbon default swaps, derivative forestry futures, shares in timbercorp, great southern, storm finance, etc, cause the current GFC?

The loony left seem to be salivating about the army of bureaucrats they will have administering an ETS. While the raving right are thinking loopholes galore, business as usual.

A good article. Most economic analysis of socalled climate change is conducted on false assumptions, as there is no irrefutable scientific evidence of anthropogenic global warming. Consequently, as there is no scientific justification for carbon taxing legislation, there is no economic justification for it. As no benefits would result from enacting such legislation, but there would be major costs by virtue of steep energy price rises, lost comparative advantage, destruction of large sections of primary production, substantial unemployment and falling standards of living , a cost benefit analysis would never be positive.

I say every new house built should be complete with solar generating panels. Even if the climate change theory is wrong, cleaning up the atmosphere will only do good.
Moor clean generation of power is paramount, instead of burning coal.
The oceans water should be better utilized as a means of producing energy to inturn produce electric power.