"Targeting national consumption of emissions helps promote a global deal. Targeting emissions production does not."

But what it does do is transfer to the government arbitrary and uncheckable powers to interfere in every aspect of your daily life, reward their supporters in industry and punish any person or institution foolish enough to question their policies. It's a win-win situation!

Except for the public, of course.

The government's proposed carbon tax will make us economic losers and environmental hypocrites.
geoff,
"will make us" ? I think there is plenty evidence that we already are.

I think in any sticky situation it's a bit weak to say nothing can be done unless someone else comes to the rescue. Far from being powerless Australia has soft power through popular culture and hard power through resource leverage. In fact we are lagging not leading in carbon mitigation. I think the simple fact is if China and India don't put in a matching effort on carbon mitigation we will have to put a carbon tariff on their products. Ah but our per capita emissions are so much higher then again we don't have such a large population.

If you accept climate change as a troubling reality then it is in our own long term interests to mitigate carbon. We may have to accept some short term pain. Before long it may reveal itself to be a wise move since coal, oil and gas will get expensive anyway. However there is still enough coal left to bring intolerable extreme weather. Better to leave in the ground and learn to live without it. Therefore the line 'it's better to do nothing' is not only weak but short sighted.

The point Geoff Carmody, and others, makes, that any carbon pricing scheme that disadvantages Australian trade-exposed exporters will be counter-productive in terms of global emissions, is so obvious that I wonder whether politicians simply don't understand it. So let me try to help with an example. Australia is a globally successful aluminium producer. To make a kilogram of aluminium from Australia bauxite and Australian energy (mainly electricity) requires some 210 megajoules. That's a lot of energy, but Australia's competitive success in that business means that we are doing at least as well, and generally better, than other producers. And there are good technical reasons for this. So, assuming that the world continues to need aluminium at its present rate of consumption, shutting down Australian production will simply shift it elsewhere and result in higher energy usage, and emissions, elsewhere. So it does absolutely nothing for global emissions, while severely damaging our own prosperity. There is no argument, moral, logical or rational, that could support such an action.

The argument that it is better to do nothing rather than to do something that only gives the appearance of doing something, but in fact achieves nothing and disadvantages Australia in the process.

There are many other mechanisms such as to reduce dependency on coal power in progressive stages while increasing the investment in renewables. There will always be some coal power required given the debate about baseload power and demand (if the population keeps growing).

There are also other methods to do with regulation about filtering, dealing with waste etc that could be implemented which could include impositions on those who export to Australia in terms of responsible manufacture or production. Stop importing food that we can grow here with a low carbon footprint (if one must use that term) and only import food where it is environmentally responsible ie. where producing that same crop in Australia involves more emmissions (greenhousing, heat etc) than the impact of food miles.

There is so much more we could do and instead have opted for a carbon tax which will not necessarily lead to a reduction in emissions especially as there will be supports and subsidies provided to offset costs to both consumers and emitters, and those who can afford the inceased energy bills will just reduce spending in other areas.

There are any number of troubling aspects to this carbon tax - oops, *price* - but a couple of them would be:

This is the Greens' baby all the way: Doleful Bob and the Carping Penguin hovering alongside the Red Ferret, making sure she reads the script they wrote for her. So what does it say for democracy in this country, that a party with a grand total of one lower house member, and who captured at best 13% of the national vote, is able to strong-arm the most far-reaching tax and most aggressive program of social engineering in the history of this nation?

What, in the end, is it going to do? If, as we keep being assured, there will be compensation for consumers, does anyone think is going to happen? 'Big polluters' will be taxed. The tax impost will be passed on as increased prices. The revenue collected will be recycled back to the consumer as compensation for increased prices. And so the cycle will go.

If, as is more likely, the 'compensation' doesn't make the price rises - which is after all what the tax is about: making formerly cheap energy more expensive and thus less attractive to the consumer. Smiley-face totalitarians like the Greens just LOVE using taxes to try and remould society to their utopian visions - consumers will simply end up paying much more for the energy they can't do without.

Oh, but the Greens will say, the revenue will be ploughed into subsidising 'clean energy', bringing prices down. Will it, bollocks. Fossil energy may end up being artificially priced as expensively, but all that will do is simply lead more people into penury as they try and pay their electricity bills.

This whole climate change/carbon tax malarkey is proof positive of (Groucho) Marx's dictum that 'politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies'.

Geoff makes an intriging point, which I had not previously considerd, when he says that there is no guarantee that major polluters will do anything about emissions, simply because carbon is taxed.

In fact that may well be right for the big electricity generators. All they may do is pass on the price of the carbon tax. Although electricity prices are still regulated at the state level (depending on the state), those regulatory bodies are not meant to be telling the generators to save carbon. Extra cost? Okay, you can pass it on.

Now that I think about it, what a waste of time and money.

Doing nothing is preferable... to whom?

To us, ordinary Australians, of course it is, no need for such a long article to prove it, but to Julia? quite contrary!
She needs all the money she can get to fund her pet NBN and she needs it now. If she could get away with it, she would rob a bank and take all our savings (and actually, she may still do just that!).

So whether it is that,

The climate is changing;
The Martians are invading;
The planets are in ill-conjuction;
A monkey was born with three heads...

Whatever the pretext, any time, rain or shine, is a good time to take our money and give it to her mates in the NBN.

I agree with individual, relying on the parliamentarians and putting up with them over the last forty years have made us losers, and it is our own fault. We may want to prevent global warming, but you'd have to be an optimist to believe that the presentation offered, will do anything except increase costs of everything, without achieving anything else. If you have seen anything over the last forty years that have improved our living conditions or the economy, I would like to hear it. Irrespective of which of the two parties is in government, they have both proved to be failures, and it is time they were dumped, surely a party with integrity can be organised and got into power. Unfortunately there are a number of fanatics who will keep screaming that “My party is great”, even when it dumps the economy back into recession for about the fourth or fifth time.

how many times
have we seen/heard these words..

""greenhouse gas emissions""

please NOTE

there are MANY greenhouse gas-ES
carbon is the least bad

far worse is methane
released from composting ..and when mining coal
or from poor coal-seam gas colection..
from coal-seam gas wells

[but thats not being taxed]

far worse is laughing gas[nitrous oxide]
produced by nitrates ..during farming
that releases one third ..as nitrous oxide
WHENEVER/WHEREVER its put onto the farm's dirt

BUT THATS NOT BEING TAXED

we get told its cheaper to 'do it now'
but is it cheaper..to tax the wRONG GAS?
is it cheaper to fix the wrong GREENHOUSE GASSES?

solar cells need to be cleaned..
WITH A WORSE GREENHOUSE gas
than either carbon or methane or nitricoxide

WE ARE BEING CONNED
by economists needing more cash
that want a new coommodity to trade in
to speculate the price up...while govt mandates
an ever lower limit..[per-mit]..of carbon credits..they own..!

when they corner the market
will their franchise [carbon credits]
rise or fall in price?

think about it

we hear of carbon in cold water
we hear the oceans are warning
[warm water holds LESS carbon]
is thus less acidic

besides the ocean if full of chalk[calcides]
recall your science...calcided reduce acidity
the oceans can regulate acid..automaticly..
with calcides..the oceans full of it

whatever aspect we look at
ITS A C0N..!

I have to agree with Clownfish (and the sentiments of many others) all that this will do is drive prices of many consumer items up. The behaviour of the generators probably won't change (why should it?) and the "lunatic fringe" chalk up a win which, without a minority government, would never have come their way.
On a side issue, I note that Mr Xenephon has "struck a deal" (for that read, "reached some sort of sweethearted concession") with the government which will probably see the flood levy passed. Never mind the validity of the levy for a moment, the issue here is that once again a "minority" interest has "negotiated" a sweet deal to allow our elected minority government to get its proposals across the line. This isn't the version of democracy that I voted for - a few loonies pushing their respective barrows and getting whatever they want if they agree to say "yes" to something. This isn't right is it?
Cheers
Greg

one under god.. although I'm relutant to stir you up, um, you realised that the concentrations of methane in the atmosphere have not increased substantially since about the turn of the century.. see the NOAA monitoring site.. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/

CO2 concentrations are increasing, but methane is basically out of the global warming picture now, as even the IPCC 2007 report agrees. A section in the report discusses why concentrations haven't been inceasing, without coming to any conclusion..

What Labor are doing is totally insane.

I learnt today that is all the fossil fuels were burnt tomorrow,the world would warm by 1.5 deg C.As temps rise more evaporisation creates more clouds which reflect the sun's energy.It is a self regulating system to a large degree.

The world has not heated for 10 yrs and now is entering a cooling cycle.A whole lot of people have been sucked in,hook line and sinker.

Sometimes you wish some people weren't on your side.

The sad part is that a handful of people (Australians) think they have an impact on world climate. There are six billion who don't give a hoot so what can Australia achieve ?

Geoff Carmody, formerly a consistent promoter of taxing CO2 emissions, has sobered somewhat by stating that doing nothing is preferable to another CPRS, whatever the odds of a global deal.

One can only hope that he comes to realise eventually that, in the absence of any scientific evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a cause of dangerous global warming, doing nothing is the preferred option -- full stop

I have to take issue with all the posters here! In fact the politicians will factor this tax to get more then they give and so will all industry! They will laugh at all us mugs who HAVE to pay it whilst greenies and other politicians invent a way so they do not pay anything.
Lets tax firewood and see how Christine Milne (Truck-load of firewood to her house no worries) likes it? I bet there would soon be an exemption sought despite her earning twice the national wage as soon as she leaves Parliament. We have to wait till 65 for the pension we paid for and she gets hers as soon as she leaves Parliament that we paid for also!
Roll on the first hiccup and a new election and then see what people think then.

cumagin intersting you blindly rebut only methane
[wait till they facter in the 40,000 leakey coal gas wells now being drilled in qld alone

plus the extra coal as coal exports continue their increase
the index claims to update yearly..yet stops at 2009

it notes nitrouse oxide as increasing
you conveniantly ommit this as well

rebuting one gas cant rebut all of them

''Of the five long-lived greenhouse gases that contribute 96% to radiative climate forcing, CO2 and N2O are the only ones that continue to increase at a regular rate.

Radiative forcing from CH4 increased from 2007 to 2009 after remaining nearly constant from 1999 to 2006.

the radiative forcing of the long-lived, well-mixed greenhouse gases increased 27.5% from 1990 to 2009 (~0.60 watts m-2),

''CO2 has accounted for nearly 80% of this""..[27 percent]..""increase (~0.47 watts m-2).''

BUT THE OTHER ARE RISING TOO

''''The five major greenhouse gases account for about 96% of the direct radiative forcing by long-lived greenhouse gas increases since 1750.''

The remaining 4% is contributed
by the 15 minor halogenated gases.

these have MORE than TRIPPLED
0.031 to 0.103

cfc11 has near doubled
cfc12 0.092 to 0.170
n20 0.099 to 0.173
ch4 0.410 to 0.502

so it all depends on who is spinning it
c02 sure AINT NO HOCKEY STICK

""Figure 4 shows radiative forcing
for the major gases and a set of 15 minor long-lived halogenated gases (CFC-113, CCl4, CH3CCl3, HCFCs 22, 141b and 142b, HFCs 134a, 152a, 23, 143a, and 125, SF6, and halons 1211, 1301 and 2402).

Except for the HFCs and SF6, which do not contain chlorine or bromine, these gases are also *ozone-depleting gases""

remember when..we were told the ozone hole
was going to create warming
and we got cooling...LOL

The NOAA Annual Greenhouse Gas Index (AGGI),
is still run by science types..
that are good ..at SPIN

and what govt ever saw
a new tax it didnt LOVE?

what special intrest
dont love easy GOVT CASH?

Better Modeling Leads to Less Global Warming
“A newer, more sophisticated climate model has lost more than 25 percent of its predicted warming.

The change resulted from a more realistic simulation of the way clouds work, resulting in a major reduction in the model’s “climate sensitivity,”

which is the amount of warming predicted for a doubling of the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide over what it was prior to the industrial revolution,

says Patrick J. Michaels,
a senior fellow with the Cato Institute.
http://reason.org/blog/show/better-modeling-leads-to-less-globa

each individual item
is not particularly remarkable per-se,

and even a selected bunch of them taken together could be explained one way or another, and ultimately, considered as some kind of “lucky chance”.

After all, one could argue that Einstein’s relativity is a by-product of Ricci-Curbastro’s tensor calculus, or that tensor calculus appeared just-in-time as it was needed for relativity to be developed.

History of science is full of examples like that.

It is however of a much taller order to apply that line of reasoning to 30+ separate items.

Furthermore, there are items
here..[at link]..that defy all possible explanation.

http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/why-agw-is-logically-impossible/

http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2011/01/25/climategate-or-the-self-destruction-of-climate-science-from-the-italian-translation-of-the-gwpf-report/

http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2011/02/14/heres-what-gives-science-a-bad-name/

http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2011/03/01/so-you-believe-in-computer-models/

http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2011/01/28/the-scientific-consensus-on-the-mistreatment-of-climate-uncertainties/

One under god - while I admire your efforts to drag tensor calculus into the debate, a few reality checks. The only two greenhouse gases of any importance are methane and CO2 and methane is only important, despite its extremely low concentrations (parts per billion) because it is so effective. Methane concentrations in the atmosphere are far below even the lowest projections made by the IPCC in 2000. Although CO2 concentrations are at least increasing, on present trends they will not double by the turn of the century - look up the Mauna Lau observations for yourself and do a little arithmetic, if you don't believe me. Perhaps they will increase by 50 pc -if present trends hold.

So the radiative forcing is already well short of what is required for even mid-range forecasts. Then you have the problem that the radiative forcing by itself won't cause any of the big temp increases forecast. Those rely on a feedback mechanisms in the climate model and those feedback mechanisms depend on water vapour in the atmosphere.

Drop the references to tensor calculus and work out what's happening with water vapour.

Government has yet to announce anything other than its intention of introducing a Carbon Tax from 1 July 2012 which, over a 5-7 year period would be fixed and transit to an ETS. There are two fundamental reasons why the public should reject the conclusions reached by Geoff Carmody.

Firstly, in the absence of any other information from government, Mr Carmody can only have reached his conclusion by making a number of assumptions. What assumptions? What justification for making them? What arguments to sustain them? On all of these points Mr Carmody remains silent.

Very smart if he wishes to avoid criticism of his backflip on a Carbon Tax which he has previously supported, his arguments such as they are and the irresponsible conclusion reached. What is striking is how close his conclusion is to the position adopted by Opposition Leader Abbott – so close that one is obliged to ask if Mr Carmody has advised the Liberal Party or its members?

Secondly, Mr Carmody is not informed on the primary purpose of pricing carbon, the need to reduce carbon emissions (CO2, CH4) or the reasons for doing so. For this reason he ignores this all important aspect. He ignores the effects of doing nothing or pursuing business as usual. Those effects are well known, they are very damaging to our economy and so threatening that they make do nothing or BAU unacceptable options.

There are economists who are far better informed than Mr Carmody, who do know the very real dangers posed by global warming and ocean acidification, both primarily caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases. Professor Garnaut is only one of many economists aware of the growing urgency to curb our emissions and for other countries to also do so. His advice is clear and consistent. Price carbon, reduce emissions and do it now. He is informed and he is right.

Australia is a small greenhouse gas emitter, though per capita it is the largest in the world and its export of polluting coal is a world leader. If we do nothing, we can expect other emitters to do likewise and we are certainly in no position to demand they act before we do. We all hang together on climate change or we all hang the environment. Our children and grandchildren will pay a much heavier price than we will by taking preemptive action now.

im not about to go back to your previous link...BUT
i have its image in my mind

it showed a multicolour graph
just over half of it was co2
just under half was all the other gasses

now take just one of the gasses
methane...you seem to be fixated on rebuting
and lets call it 1/20 th the ammount of co2
[per bloody million/whatever]

so for every part per million parts
there are say 20 of methane..or 40 or whatever

here is my point
each opart per million
has its affect...

lets say carbon has a one to one affect
but know methane has a 100[plus] to one affect
that is it takes over 100 parts of carbon..
TO EQUATE THE AFFECT OF JUST ONE METHANE

al those other formentioned 'lesser grenhouse gasses'
might have lower numbers[lower parts per million]
BUT VASTLY BIGGER AFFECTS

each part [of the other greenhouse gasses]
equals over 100 carbon affects

im of the opinion the whole thing is a scam
from the science to the carbon tax cheaters
its all a scam

im just saying taxing carbon
is not even taxing the really bad gasses
thus isnt even trying to be a cure..in fact is a great danger
if we really have problems with ...''GREEN-HOUSE GAS's]""

it angers me how the specialists
generalise with the buzzords greenhouse gases
then FOCUS IN ON ONE..[carbon]
and taxing just one

when if we REALLY GOT A PROBLEM
[and im not convinced even of that]

but it it IS..
we SHOULD be taxing the f/ing lot

as we arnt
its clear its a scam

their mates dont pay tax
may keep their govt subsidies
[in excess of 12 billion ..RIGHT NOW]

but we mugs conned with numbers and spin

we do..
we MUST pay now
...same as usual

get all gasses
to pay

or none

or its a trick
spin

to get a big new tax
on us..and not 'them'

Dear Mr. Carmody,

It has already been noted on OLO that there appears to be a “softening” in your position on this topic and you would appear to be in good company.

The whole basis for AGW is yet to be tested but this is unlikely to be allowed by those in the advocacy block who have vested interests. Instead we must look for more nuanced changes.

It has been suggested on OLO that skepticism has it’s foundations in the fact that there is only one recognized global body with governance and policy advice for politicians, the UN IPCC. That this body has a single orthodoxy, AGW and the exclusive streaming of only that science which supports this single orthodoxy. To my knowledge, none of the IPCC reports has ever included contrary scientific papers.

So we have a single governance body with a single orthodoxy and single stream science.

This was challenged by Climategate, which came and went, all players were exonerated, nothing to see here folks, just move right along, perhaps not?

If, as we also speculated, it is political sponsorship that is holding together the AGW phenomena, this could be because of residual public sentiment lagging political pragmatism. The advocacy block well knows this and continues to boost this public sentiment, getting more vocal in direct proportion to the decline in support. As a result, politicians will continue to promote populist stances on AGW until and unless such values no longer risk votes.

If this is so, we should be able to see evidence of the political position changing whilst keeping the populist dream alive. Running with the Hare and hunting with the Hounds as it were.

Since Climategate the US has withdrawn funding from the East Anglia University and the UN IPCC, it has blocked the US EPA from legislating carbon dioxide emissions. The EPA seems to be the only body that has formally declared carbon dioxide a “pollutant”. The EPA also has sixteen “Litigation Hold Notices” issued against it in the US and cannot regulate CO2 without a visit to the Supreme Court anyway.

Continued:

Continued:

India has formally announced that it will no longer base policy on the IPCC. The UK government is planning to remove the exclusion of Nuclear power generation from their ROC system. The German Chancellor has announced that the planned closure of it’s nineteen Nuclear power stations will be cancelled and that the new build coal fired power stations will burn “lignite” (with some thermal efficiency improvement of course). Saudi Arabia has budgeted $10Bn for Nuclear Power to sell electricity, desalinate water and produce hydrogen.

We now know that the much vaunted Danish Wind farms do not produce 20% of their electricity as stated by the ABC, nationally it is 13%, with some four fifths of this electricity supplied to neighboring countries at nil cost as it is produced when not needed. The Swedes now use some of this power to pump water back into their Hydro Schemes, at a cost to the Danish public of DDK 1.5Bn.

We can evidence the decline in financial investment and the increase in fraudulent activity within the green finance sector. The end of the Chicago Climate Exchange with the announcement on Oct. 21, 2010 that it will be ending carbon trading, the EU trading scheme is still only “partially” operating, that 88% of green trading in Copenhagen has been fraudulent and has now been valued at a cost of DDK 42.2bn.

In Australia, after the PM’s announcement in September, Transfield CEO has now announced the suspension of two wind farms worth $1.5bn due to? Yes you guessed it, lack of green investments.

Continued:

Continued:

The skeptical science community, who were previously asleep at the wheel, is now challenging “experts” such as Garnaut, Flannery and Karoly. Every aspect of AGW is now being scientifically challenged with copies to MP’s, the media and academia. The biggest and most voluminous challenges have been against the IPCC’s reports.

It has long been the case that the MSM in general and our public broadcasters in particular have become the “gatekeepers” of news and current affairs that might otherwise inform public debate. This is easy to confirm by the absence of many of the issues mentioned here from the public forum.

We might well ask why, if such powerful scientific challenges are being comprehensively documented with copies to all our MP’s, MSM, the ABC and academia, is all this not in the public domain?

There are clearly some significant political changes occurring, most seem to relate to a shift from low carbon policies to energy security policies. Taking Copenhagen and Cancun as a back drop, it appears that the UN’s efforts to obtain binding commitments are like “herding cats”.

As an economist, you would be well aware of Kepner Tregoe, Enterprise Mapping and Entity Relationship Analysis. You might be interested to know that the AGW phenomenon fails each and every one of these tests. Even Ross Garnaut’s reports all fail as first base.

As we have discussed with you previously, when you can answer some of the very contentious “why” public concerns identified here, then you might reasonably address some of the “what” issues, otherwise you may be a target for the great “dollops” of egg being prepared for dispatch to a face near you any time soon.

one under god

Go back and look at http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/
Clearly the two important gases are methane and CO2.. the remainder, the shrapnel, collectively account for well under a quarter of radiative forcing. Of those the most important are the CFC gases, which also stopped increasing some years back, thanks to substantial efforts to reduce production of them. N2O concentrations are still increasing but the contribution of that gas is tiny.

I dealt with both methane and CO2 quite fairly in both previous posts. clearly the gases are not behaving according to forecasts, as I pointed out. As I also poointed out that more extreme forecasts rely on water vapour, not these gases

Leave it with you.

Taswegian writes … “if China and India don't put in a matching effort on carbon mitigation we will have to put a carbon tariff on their products.” …

Now that is a really insightful comment.

Appropriate use of a carbon tariff on imports would certainly limit the over-vaunted risk of Australian emitters moving off-shore where they are free to pollute, rather than pay a carbon tax.

It would also, as pointed out by Taswegian, protect Australian industry from cheaper imports produced by countries which do not take steps to reduce their greenhouse emissions.

I raised the question of adopting carbon tariffs as a protection against unfair competition in submissions to the first Garnaut Review – not a proposition accepted by the Rudd Government. Taswegian reminds us that it is a valuable tool which might well be embodied in government proposals for a carbon tax.

comeogen i suggest you read the tables
at your link
not just look at the pretty spin

here are the numbers
from your own link

4% is contributed
by the 15 minor halogenated gases.

these have MORE than TRIPPLED

0.031 to 0.103

cfc11 has near doubled
cfc12 0.092 to 0.170
n20 0.099 to 0.173
ch4 0.410 to 0.502

its no use arguing with a closed mind

get real
and tax them all

dont come with a closed mind
and simply repeat the link

read what its saying

all of it
not just the bits you agree with

the number speak for themselves

TAX all* the greenhouse gas's
or none

economists want a new tax
thwey can spin the numbers as they like
ALL THE GREENHOUSE GAS NUMBERS HAVE GONE UP

carbon is the least danger
but your deaf

your one track mind
wants a simple tax on carbon
why do you pretend the OTHER GREENHOUSE gas's are so guiltfree

please explain how this gas co2..is guilty..TAX it
and those ..'other' gas's ar'nt....thus dont tax them

share the guilt and the shame
co2 ALONE is not to blame

Like I said, sometimes you wish some people just weren't on your side ...

Mr Carmody seems to have overlooked two facts: 1. Australia has an international obligation to act in a way that limits average global temperature by 2100 to less than 2C above 1750 levels. 2. The Australian government has a domestic responsibility to ensure that 20% of our energy needs are sourced from renewable sources by 2020.

How do Carmody and Opposition Leader Abbott believe these undertakings are to be realized in the most cost efficient and effective manner possible? One suggests these outcomes can be achieved by doing nothing rather than pricing carbon; the other calls for taxing the public (you and me) between $10-30 billion so that the proceeds can be applied to encouraging – not obliging - businesses to reduce emissions or use energy more efficiently.

Take your pick. One will achieve nothing and the other will be hard pressed to do much more than spend vast sums to achieve too little. Wouldn’t you just love to be a political leader with a big new bag of money you can dish out to those you believe will be winners?

Agnostic:

1) - why? and more to the point, how?

2) - why? and also, how?

You have failed to explain why either point is even obligatory (although point 2 may certainly be desirable), let alone even achievable.

I have the same questions as clownfish ..

1. since when did this become obligations, to those levels?

2. that would be nice, but how? Nuclear ? Or picking winners like hot rocks .. oh, that's failed already since we're not geologically positioned to do it, we have to drill too deep and the pipes become brittle.

if all the money going into climate science went into R&D, we'd probably be able to develop new technologies faster .. gravy trains eh

I heard today China are going to put in place plans to reduce emissions, but they will not impede their use of coal at all, they just want other sources of energy .. sounds like a shell game to me

Geoff Carmody, I don’t want to confuse you with facts but have you read this?

http://skepticalscience.com/real-world-example-carbon-pricing-benefits-outweigh-costs.html

Perhaps you should

agnostic
[i wish you would read your own spin/links

""The RGGI report also found
that the program has* created jobs.""..

note the word has*..

the article continues[unedited]

"A 2010 analysis by Environment Northeast
*estimates that energy efficiency programs
funded with CO2 allowance proceeds through December 2010
are projected*...""

NOTE THE BUZZWORDS..
estimates/projections
after deefinitivly STATING ...'HAS"

..""to create nearly 18,000 job years""

note the further buzzword,..job YEARS

we have gone
[on your own link]

from ..has* created job's..
to estimates* ...of job*years

to make matters even worse
your link directs to another link

""The RGGI recently commissioned a study* to examine the impacts of the system,..and the results'...OF A STUDY'..give us a real-world example""

*[link]
http://www.rggi.org/docs/Investment_of_RGGI_Allowance_Proceeds.pdf

but lets finish the sentance

""..results give us a real-world example
which is broadly*consistent..with the economic study*predictions
of benefits..outweighing costs...""

yes accountants studies
we have read many times

yes its cheaper to do it today
BUT IF BASED ON A LIE...

[and thus didnt need doing
..or is the WRONG solution]
..the 'cost benefit',is hardly a 'benefit"

instead it becomes a colluded fraud

then nothing is far better
lets say even if it costs 10 percent more...LATER

if it didnt
need to be done
we saved trillions

ps your'[proof talks about a small sceme
for..''ten northeastern states in the USA''

that costs ''$789 million""
ours will cost BILLIONS

and we arnt auctioning/off permits to polute
we are..*gifting BILLIONS to poluters

your comparing apples with cheese

do the reasearch much of the eus financial problems is because of green scemes...[spain had lots of greenjobs building
..but the green jobs are gone..[now its been built]

briton has many thousands of windmills
barely generating the same electricity
a small coal station would generate..

it spent many billions for what
wind mills that dont ever..generate max capacity

look at what we done so far,..with solar
EVERYONE of them is sucking off..the off-peak system
many are getting input trarrifs..near double the normal tarrif

ITS ALL A SCAM

tax all greenhouse gas
or none

Agnostic, I note you have chosen to studiously ignore my questions.

The whole global warming religious hysteria makes me think we've disappeared down a time warp and come up back in the middle ages. Next we'll have public parades of self-flagellation. The carbon tax is just a re-run of the selling of indulgences and worship of our holy mother the church all over again. It is fully thirteen layers deep in fallacy and fraud.

i had the same feeling last light[re a timewarp]
tim flannelry was on abc..[it was a lengthy re-run from 2005]
it was a clasic..[more huricanes etc]

bushe howard right wing deniers
[oops sorry he called them idiots]

he was saying how great uk was
[while they were spending billions on the windmills that didnt work]

didnt mention that because the windmills didnt work..
last winter
it had to BUY its power ..from france..

this a few months ago
proving his 6 years ago paranoia
and the sky is falling abosolutly inept

it was so like buying indulgances
[noting the scam[sorry sceme] previously linked
as working ...was only about selling permits to polute

this set a level [guide] for real carbon market pricing
to wit ''$789 million""..[for ten states]

we with less than 7
withy far less people
should be looking at relitive value
thus limit any price on carbon to under 500 million

to wit no where near
even one billion

no one seems to be talking about how much
a 26 dollar tax will raise as opposed to the proposed 46$ carbon ton

i recall one of the proponants said a 7 cents surcharge on just elercticity would equate to the total nbn expenditure
as income value..every year

[so we are talijng about huge tax takes]
huge cash cows

maybe we should just
put the tax on exports
of polutants

its sad to see the petty straw grasping
almost as sad as seeing juliar in usa
visiting murderoc and obamma
and addresing con-gress..[staffers]

[the 3rd aussie pm..to do so]
in a row..it must be the latest carrot dangle
[reward ...for pavloves dogs]

[recall what happend
after rudd and howard done the same]

We need to get our dependence on oil fixed. How else is it going to happen with out incentive. To clean the country up will be better for all. There may be benefits that have not been realized as yet. Get coal fired boilers on gas, this will be a major breakthrough in pollution.
Oil one day will deplete, so to be prepared sooner rather than later is all good.

a597, sure totally agree with you on the need to break our dependence on oil .. but how does taxing one part of the community, compensating another, send 10% of the take to the UN do that? The rest will go to ALP schemes to prop up marginal electorates and fund the massive and soon to be bigger, Dept of Climate Change.

If the government was going to plow all the tax into R&D, wild schemes to find and develop new energy sources, I could go along with that .. as long as all the money being given to climate science went with it .. they have done their job, scared the populace and the pollies.

Now it's time to move to the next phase .. nuclear power to get rid of coal, and find new energy sources to replace oil .. picking false winners like geothermal doesn't work unless you are on a tectonic plate edge .. so that won't work for Australia. Solar and wind will never be base load and are quaint at best.

meanwhile you all the carpetbaggers have a place at the trough of government money

it's yet more waste of our funds, we have no idea what the government is doing, yet again we find they have no plan beyond stopping progress .. the Greens win again, because that's their objective

im sick of the spin

black/swan wants ""australia to not fall behind""
last i heard we were ahead of our 5 percent
[two party aGREED]...target

this point was also raised
on meet_the_press
http://ten.com.au/media/MTP_06_03_2011.doc

""SIMON BENSON Mr Wolpe,..the goal is essentially to reduce emissions...and not to create new subsidised economies.""

we could hope so
but would be disappointed

""I would’ve thought that was the ultimate goal.""

yes me too
thats how its sold

BUT

""The US is claiming that its target
capping emissions is 17% by 2020,..
and that’s without*..an ETS.

""In Australia..we're looking at 5% reduction
and that’s with an ETS.

How do you explain that discrepancy?

Is it folly for Australia
to be going down this path alone?

BRUCE WOLPE:Well,..no,
there are different bases involved""..

yes we get a tax..
to support a base-line..price for carbon
then unlimited carbon traitering
priced to an ever smaller carbon-cap

..""but ultimately I think
the goals are relatively consistent.""..

yea me too..but WHO'S goals?
pay as much..as the speculaters can speculate
a..limited carbon-credit/market price* into

""I think leadership is leadership"".

""I think when people see a compelling problem
and they see strong leaders..step up to address it,..they admire it.

""Ultimately over time–you know,
we can talk about science..and where it is for centuries,
Galileo,..we can talk about the Scopes trial in Tennessee,about whether evolution is correct.

The science of global warming cannot be denied
over time"""..

AVOI-DANCE?

"""and that means
you have to deal with it.""

you as in the CON-sumer
YOU deal with it..'over-time'

""How do you deal with it,
OK,..?*?*?

""but I think it is imperative
that we move forward..?
because it’s all our futures together.""

OUR
CARBON FUTURES?

ok..lets get this bit straight
the_evolution_trial
was about NOT..teaching the bible..in a science class

IT DID NOT DECIDE
NOR JUDGE EVOLUTION
as being ..either true ..or faulse

it was purely about science
being taught
..in science class

i gotta tell you
DOING NOTHING ..IS PREFERABLE
to this spin... lies and garbage

WE ARE MEETING
the current caps
why we need ...any new_tax?

ol sawnnie said

a carbon 'price' [not tax impost-cost]
is important..

because...
''so business drives investment''
[with govt subsidy]

also GALLING was this redirection
re if its out of our paypacket..or not

i dont know about you
but my pay goes in the bank
the bills i pay come out of the bank

*EVERYTHING i pay..COMES FROM MY PAY PACKET*

[this is just another EXCUSE
not to mention the war
[oops sorry..the *NEW BIG TAX}

swan EVEN SAID
he is in lockstep with howard
he even quoted the old how hard blow hard
[just as kevies tax was the same as howards tax..is the same as julias tax]

swannie even said ''we went to election with a carbon price'
[yet when its quoted by tqwo faced tony..julia spins her bile]

swannie even said
he will work with anyone
[supporting taxing the people]
who have the REQUIRED..'goodwill'[to a new tax sceme

listen
the globe is in ressesion
we arnt..[yet]

much of the ressesion countries
went big on going green..went big on trading carbon..selling carbon

the ressesion got them
we plan to follow where they lead

we havnt got a number
why not?

""BRUCE WOLPE:..It is going to be applied
to major sources of pollution,power plants,
major industrial sources..and it will help abate carbon..""

it will target ONE greenhouse-GAS

""BRUCE WOLPE:Direct action,
in my judgement,..is simply not sufficient.""

""you need a price on carbon
in order to get renewables
and other alternative energy sources viable.""

BY increasing prices beyond market prices with a tax

why?
""These market mechanisms..*need to work.""

""Clean energy jobs can be created,
new industries and new wealth*""

thats about the size of it.

""JENNIFER HEWETT:But that sounds like…
BRUCE WOLPE:..Ultimately,*it will be done.
JENNIFER HEWETT:..That sounds like a direct action plan,
a little more similar to what Tony Abbott is trying to put in place here.""

yes it is jenny

two parties
one solution
tax you

RPG Can,t you just hang on a bit. Let us see what the plan looks like before we criticize, something that has yet to be planned. It,s jumping the gun. You are talking about nothing. These forums would be better served by suggesting options rather than condemning something that we no nothing about. Like Abbott saying it will be rolled back if he has his way. [ what will be rolled back ]
It is our future that is at stake, so all helpful suggestions will be read.

a597 .. so I should wait to see what the government intends to do, and not voice an opinion based on their past performance or my frustration at their lack of planning ..

but it's OK for you and other alarmists to make all manner of predictions and declarations

"There may be benefits that have not been realized as yet". Like what? Why don't we wait for the benefits and then state they are good?

"Get coal fired boilers on gas, this will be a major breakthrough in pollution." Why? So there is no CO2 from burning gas?

yep, that's why the skeptics out there are worried .. we see this sort of add thinking all the time and the overwhelming desire by alarmists to shut down debate or discussion.

So "something that has yet to be planned. It,s jumping the gun" is what the government is doing declaring they are going to tax carbon emission to save the world ..

who is jumping the gun here?

I'm advocating no carbon tax, ever .. and yes we should reduce pollution, but this idiotic idea of our government's is just a sop to the greens and to build an even bigger government, one that controls everything and reduces progress

Your imagination is running away with your brain. Who is going to be taxed ?. Don,t repeat what two word Toni says, he is not in the same world. Jumping at conclusions before there is any, is stupid.
The people responsible for fraud against the govt; are being dealt with. It,s a fact of life that there are fraudsters in the community.
Gas has only a fraction of carbon, compared to coal. A car running on gas does not even change the colour of the engine oil, and no deposits inside the engine.
So doing nothing is not an option. Not a very well thought out title.

a597 .. "Who is going to be taxed ?"

you didn't read the article did you?

"Don,t repeat what two word Toni says, he is not in the same world". Oh, what world is he in .. or should I ask, what world are you in?

"Jumping at conclusions before there is any, is stupid" so your statement "There may be benefits that have not been realized as yet." is stupid?

It's an opinion site 597, so I don't have to come up with suggestions that satisfy your requirements .. you may be in a flat panic, not everyone is.

You don,t have a case to give an opinion on. This debate should not happen until september. When all the facts are on the table. Your opinions were made overnight. There,s plenty of legislation around that,s what should be debated, not skepticism at what you think may happen. [ maybe ,but, if, because, ] it is all rubbish, not even the legislaters know, so what hope have you got.

This is a perfect example of the totally immoral incompetence of Julia & her mob.

How can anyone say they have to do something, & announce they will be doing it to save the world, [sic], when they have not even decided what to do, how much to do, or what to do it to. God help us this woman, & the fellow travellers are complete idiots, if they think they can lie so brazenly, & get away with it.

We really are smart enough to know that the announcement has nothing to do with anything, but buying that ratbag Brown, & the support of his mob.

I suppose it would be possible for someone to be more disgusting than this lady, but I really can't see how.

Henry Ford didn't sell cars by lobbying the government to tax horse poo.

A carbon tax is simply an admission by the 'alternative' energy sector that their product just isn't good enough.

When 'alternative' energy spruikers can come up with something even as useful and cost-effective as a Model-T, then people will buy it of their own free will.