What's the best option? Er, find some real evidence of AGW first? No, too hard, obviously.

The best option is not to put a price on Carbon but to put a price on developers, on speculators, on investors & high end public Servants because that's where you find the beginnings of many a polluting scheme for the benefit of only a few. Frivolity or motosport & other entertainment tax would be another to curb emission.
That's if we're serious about cutting back on emission which has already gone so far that no remedy will be noticeable for the next three generations anyhow.
The social implication will prove to become many more times harder to control than any environmental issues.

Is it possible the Government is influenced by that source of notable scientific literature which proclaims global warming is all crap?

IF CO2 is a problem,why not tax carbon as it comes i=out of the ground.No, the mining companies still want to sell their volumes of coal sales and don't want to pay any tax.They want us to pay a tax to feed their derivative markets in carbon trading.It has nothing to do with limiting carbon but making even better profits.

More lies and deception.

Arjay .. there's carbon in trees as well, and in animals, and in you - how are all those mining companies going to deal with that?

Stop looking for someone trying to do something sneaky on that side when the big money is in climate research and carbon trading, which the mining companies do not control .. it will be whomever the government favors .. that's where to look, the mining companies are just a source of money, not a sink.

Here's the problem with galloping alarmist extremism, it becomes the vehicle for conspiracy theorists, eco and environmental hystericists and every other form of anti-people anti-progress activists.

If CO2 is a problem, why is it so difficult to prove it is a problem? Why do climate scientists continually have to tweak and "adjust" temperature measurements, unless they have something in mind. The adjustments always seem to make things worse, not better .. go figure.

Surely if you are going to change the nature of Australian society and reduce our progress and wealth, you better have a good reason, better than .. we think, based on current knowledge, this is what might be causing something. If it turns out to be natural .. who do we blame for ruining our economy?

The majority of Australians remain suspicious of anyone who tells us a new tax is good, cannot tell us how it will help, what will happen to the money or why. The tax is to impede progress and lifestyle .. jeez, sound like a good deal doesn't it?

As Maggie Thatcher said, "socialism is great, until you run out of other people's money."

Carbon trading appears to provide a vehicle for funding activities to capture carbon as well as provide the opportunity for those handling trades to get rich. The link between problem and solution seems weak resulting in a lack of trust in the whole. Recent headlines pointing out carbon schemes have cost fortunes and achieved little do not help.

Putting a price on carbon is a Pigovian tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax). It reduces demand and therefore supply consequentially reducing carbon output.

Will companies improve technology in order to reduce carbon output whilst maintaining supply? Why should they? There are power generators who’ve realised cut output, increase price and improve profits via that route!

Will this mean the wealthy get to maintain their lifestyle while the rest suffer? Probably, given the mania for markets.

What is a taken as given is lifestyle must be maintained; perhaps the real debate should be what standard of living is wise or conducive to happiness. We have gone from the SKI age (spending the kid’s inheritance) to the STABO generation (subject to a better offer) both of which views life as “up you Jack, I’m alright”. Each added excess to the preceding generations’ dreams.

Whilst this view of life prevails anything attempted with carbon runs counter to self interest. It has been said put your money on a horse named self interest; at least you know the jockey is trying.