1. If the presumed wisdom and goodness of governments hadn't spent billions of dollars developing coal-fired power over the last hundred years, alternative technologies would already be that much more developed.

2. Carbon is used in all production: fuel, steel, transport, agriculture, manufacutring - you name it. There already is a market price on carbon - that's exactly what the warmistas don't like.

3. The scheme is, in plain terms, to make it illegal to engage in productive activity without governmental permission, granted on condition of paying tribute to the carbon Caesars. It is not a market in carbon that is being touted - it's a market in tax receipts.

4. Oh and lets' not pretend that the authors have got to square one in justifying policy action on the basis of supposed catastrophic global warming in the first place, either in the natural or the social sciences.

5. Good luck in powering industrial civilisation on sunbeams and breezes. It is easy to prove that these expensive toys are mere corrupt boondoggles - just observe the willingness of their zealous advocates to fund them voluntarily!

6. The very idea that we need an *increase* in prices to make new technologies more available just goes to show how backasswards the warmists' conception of economics really is.

7. By the author's own assumption, government's attempt to run the energy market has produced an unintended negative consequence, being the worst problem in the history of the world. How do you know that the unintended consequences of your interventions are not going to produce unintended negative consequences worse than the original problem, which could almost be said to be a defining characteristic of interventionist policies? The evidence that you have even thought about this is...?

John, yes we need a price on carbon so that we can get stuck into developing clean energy sources and improving energy-use efficiencies.

But it is unlikely to happen for the simple reason that government is in bed with big business and big business wants business as usual.

The big factor that you have left out, which is nearly always the case in articles on climate change and CO2 emissions, is Australia’s very rapid population growth. If we headed swiftly towards a stable population, instead of continuing with the current massive growth rate, we’d be able to reduce carbon emissions much more easily. For one thing, there’d be much less pressure on us to constantly increase coal exports for export income.

But again, this is unlikely because big business loves high population growth and therefore our totally biased government will continue with it.

The scenario is extremely grim. The key factor is to make government independent of vested-interest big business, or considerably less tied to their wishes. And I can’t see that happening any time soon, or ever.

<< The very idea that we need an *increase* in prices to make new technologies more available just goes to show how backasswards the warmists' conception of economics really is. >>

What?

Peter, John Le Mesurier made the perfectly valid point that if carbon is more expensive, then clean energy sources would be more viable. That’s pretty basic economics and basic commonsense. It doesn’t mean that we’d be running the country on << sunbeams and breezes >>, we’d just be changing the mix somewhat.

If I may say so, your whole position seems backasswards. You are apparently an arch advocate of the continuation of business as usual, with rapidly increasing CO2 emissions, with a society based on never-ending expansionism, with a totally unsustainable economic regime, which HAS to come crashing down before too long or be greatly modified. The longer we leave it, the more greatly and more urgently it will need to be modified.

Quite apart from AGW, there compelling reasons to develop a sustainable society in which a large component of its energy requirements is clean.

I just don’t understand how anyone can realistically uphold the current energy or economic regime.

Ludwig,
Let's talk about your "pretty basic economics".

We can let the market set a genuine price for coal (which is what we're talking about, not "carbon")and we can reap the benefits of cheap, productive energy.

Or we can let governments "set a price" - that is, a tax - and let them continue to squander taxpayers' money as our own government has been doing since the end of 2007.

On what basis is the second option preferable?

Further, making inefficient, grossly expensive technologies, such as wind and solar, "viable" by raising the price of coal is just moronic. I'm sure pretty well any ten year old would be able to nominate a thousand other things to spend our money on, including the various streams of the health profession, education, defence, police, aged care and, where essential, social services.

Have you never heard of opportunity cost?

Come on John, you can't make bald statements, & expect to be taken seriously.

You can't have opposed statements of fact, & expect it, either. First you have the governments dependent on income from coal to survive, but a few words later you claim that coal is subsidised. You do seem a bit confused.

We all know the whole country rides on the coal train, but I'm damned if I can find subsidies in there. I can also remember how the Beattie government here in Queensland was ripping a quarter of a billion a year out of the electricity industry, some subsidy.

Due to this we are all ready paying far too much for our power today. We don't need some pie in the sky dreamers plan to make it even dearer.

I'm just old enough to remember that old reprobate Joe Bjelke making the coal companies build the railways to carry their coal to port, & give them to the state. That doesn't sound like much of a subsidy, now does it.

What is it with greenies, that stops them from telling the truth of things. The other day we had some green fool claiming that not charging road tax, [now renamed petrol tax] on the fuel farmers use in their tractors, was a subsidy on petroleum.

Will the spin never stop.

I am glad you have read extensively on global warming, I hope you enjoyed it. However, could I suggest you try something other than the distorted rubbish served up in the IPCC reports, you may get to understand the subject if you do.

It may help if you read up on what has happened in those poor misguided countries who were silly enough to "lead" in this greeny rush to suicide by wind mill & solar cell. Try Spain to start with, it's a good one.

We can use it to subsidise the only proven non GHG emitting base load - nuclear power as recommended by Anna Blight, the head of the ALP