The precedent has been set in Hansard, the word 'tax' as applied to Indian Giver screws like surcharge, excise and GST is kaput, wiped out like Saddams nukes...with the speed of a rat up a drainpipe a replacement brew emerged from the Still-on-the-Hill in the form of a 'Levy'.

To ensure the mugs get the Rodent's message, the heavenly maxim was repeated 3622 times in Ruperts Ragstery..."This week's Levy aint a tax cos its a levy".

"One of the essential lessons from first year economics is that the best way of addressing a negative externality is to put a price on it."

You missed the earlier lesson, though, where you have to establish that it IS a negative externality first. Since the stuff we are talking about is what plants need to grow, and we all require plants to survive, it's a little hard to see where the 'negative' comes in. Enlighten us, please.

Everybody knows plants need co2 to grow, it,s a matter of how much.
Plants need water to grow too but it,s a matter of how much.

Is there anyone in modern society who is not a polluter ? Anyone who shops or drives or uses public transport is an indirect polluter but a polluter nevertheless. Pollution is a factored-in component of earth's make-up. Like with all other effects it is the level of it which is the crucial difference. We could start cut back on pollution by reducing the militaries use of fuel. If they want to fight give them a shield & a spear. Luxury & tourism travel are a huge component of pollution but hey who wants to curb anything ? A tax will solve all our problems. Dream on.

Meanwhile, Abbott's proposed carbon reduction policy is not market-based and will cost the taxpayer more by handing out gifts to private companies (many of them not Australian owned) - for example Abbot's policy proposes to pay a foreign-owned power company for the cost of shutting down one of the dirtiest coal-fired power stations in Victoria, and then pay them more taxpayer's money to build a new power station with much less carbon output (for example, a gas fired one). The question goes begging - if, under Abbot's policy, taxpayers are to pay for a new low carbon output power station in Victoria, how come when it's built, taxpayers won't own it, but instead a foreign company gets a gift? Stupid, and expensive...

We have to get used to the fact that the constituents are no longer fooled by the IPCC’s attempted demonization of carbon, the basis of all life on this planet.

We only have 388 parts per million of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. At least 500 parts per million is desirable for plant life. At that level plant life, including the crops on which we live, grows better and uses less water.

Our poll driven politicians, when they realize that the voters are no longer fooled by the AGW fraud, will act sensibly, and drop the carbon tax fraud.

If Juliar got away with this current effort, the UN would receive $10bn from our taxpayers, its return for the fraud of AGW, promoted by its mendacious puppet, the IPCC.

Andrew is quoting superseded nonsense, from the days when people believed the lies of the now discredited IPCC.

Update yourself, Andrew, you are living in the past.