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.