John has "read extensively on the topics of global warming and climate change, both the views of scientists and sceptics", which is a bit of a hands up, because he apparently hasn't noticed that there are many thousands of eminent scientists who don't buy the global warming/climate change crap. It's not "scientists" versus "skeptics".

But he has compiled a very comprehensive list of disasters which are about to visit us because human-derived CO2 now amounts to about 0.004 per cent of the atmosphere by volume. It's just that he doesn't bring forward any evidence to support his contention.

"Australia, the world’s largest per capita emitter" actually emits about 0.00006 per cent of CO2 in the atmosphere by volume - at that level, per capita emissions are entirely irrelevant - and yet he wants us to destroy the national economy for our sins.

The real problem John has, however, is that the great bulk of Australia's emissions are from coal-fired electricity generation (about 80 per cent of our electricity is generated from coal) and road transport, which ensures that food can be grown and transported to markets or processing and manufacturing. Even moderately small towns cannot survive without carbon emissions for good production, processing and distribution. For big cities, eating would be a luxury.

But don't let reality get in the way of a good scare story, John.

Typo, second last par, last line should be "food production". Apology.

This article starts off with a false premise, like 'man's CO2 emissions are causing global warming or global cooling or last night's lightning storm' and gets worked up into a sweat of statistics and ramifications.
All this information is irrelevant because it relies on a disproved theory.
What are we to make of the Vostok ice cores which tell us that it's natural warming (most likely caused by warmish bodies in our solar system) which causes nature's release of CO2, after an 800 year average time lag.

John - you do realise that there has been a lot of tooing and froing over the economic effects of climate change? the only report of any significance to say that the economic effects will be sufficiently severe to be worth cutting emissions now is the Stern report. All the rest say no, and complain that Stern could only make his conclusions by making extreme assumptions and adopting a very low discount or rediscount rate. There may be well be room for arguement in that but I see you have made no mention of any of thess issue. Happy to send you material which will at least give the basics of the debate .. drop me a line on ecocriminal@optusnet.com.au

ETS and climate change are being treated as synonyms - if you believe 1 you believe the other. They are not synonyms.

CPRS is a field of dreams – either it is: a Pigovian tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax) designed to suppress demand and hence production of carbon; a mechanism to create economic advantage for alternative production; or a mechanism to transfer capital to activities that will reduce the “negative externalities” (carbon pollution). Will the desired outcomes be achieved? There is no evidence to support it – in the case of CFCs regulation achieved what was desired.

Firstly, on the basis of science it is insightful to look at the fight between the University of East Anglia, the British met Office and one David Holland. Holland has asked for access to data both hold covering a medieval warm period to check the work of scientists and the IPCC. Both are refusing (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2010/2962392.htm).

The lack of transparency damages the credibility of the debate on climate.

Secondly, on the basis of efficacy of markets those deeply involved in behaviour that led to the GFC will be the same players involved in an ETS. In any market facing shortage of supply those that provide the mechanism for trade inevitably are the ones to benefit.

Thirdly, the efficacy of using Agriculture to trap carbon remains questionable. Farms can provide a positive outcome on carbon if they cease farming and grow trees. If they continue to grow food &/or fibre they can only slightly mitigate carbon.

Fourthly, who has track record in terms of changes? The Danes responded to the oil crisis in the 70s by moving to alternatives. How did they do it? What did they do? Does the total incompetence and waste involved in Gillard’s “Building the Education Revolution scheme” and Garrett’s home insulation scheme prove Australian politicians are incapable of acting competently, efficaciously and efficiently to achieve desired outcomes?

Relying on market mechanisms, which inevitably serve the strong players in the market, is the refuge of governments unwilling to govern and incompetent at achieving the outcomes required to secure a desired future for our grandchildren.

John, please assure us that you understand the problem before you offer solutions. I don’t know what “reading” you have done on this topic but you seem to have missed at least the past six months worth.

For other related responses please see threads on, Richard Dennis, Geoff Carmody, Del Weston, Malcolm King and Sophie Trevitt.

Graham Y, where are you getting all these from? We are going into overload here