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.

I think Mr Leigh is assuming the Australian market is made up of firms that are competitive. What a joke!

I predict as the carbon tax is applied to the very few firms in the Australian market, they will look at each other, smile, up their prices so the mugs will pay at all eventual points of purchase ... and then they will look at ways to reduce their carbon taxes, without passing on any savings they make to the mugs, thereby effectively doubling the cost of the carbon tax to the mugs.

Why don't these bloody academic's and politicians look at what happens in Australias real world?

The moment you flip a light switch you are a polluter, or the oven, or air conditioner.

Whilst forcing home owners to cut consumption by increasing prices is not likely to affect jobs directly, those industries that rely on high carbon consumption are simply going to relocate to countries that don't tax carbon.

Most of the assumptions in 2007 were that by now there would be a world wide tax on carbon. Since the collapse of Copenhagen, there is a whole new board game.

It is a strange phenomena so often seen, that those best suited to gaining strings of qualifications are those least able to apply the discipline at which they are supposed to be so capable.

Here we have a bloke, who should know better, who wants to rip off the general population, theoretically to cure a non problem. But hang on a minute, perhaps he knows it's all BS, but wishes to use the rubbish to achieve another end.

So what is it?

Does he want a new market, where the middle men get rich at everyone's expense?

Does he want to get more money for Julia & company, so they can do good?

If so, good for whom?

Or does he simply want to gather money to give to the most corrupt organisation on earth, the UN?

What ever the case, it's hard to believe such an educated man could have written such an article, unless he had his tongue well & truly pushed into his cheek. That is of course, unless he is a ratbag.

there are two separate debates here: is anthropogenic climate change real, and are markets the most efficient way to distribute resources.

would those who deny acc please stop being disingenuous? or is it a truism that deniers are predominantly leftists?

To me the whole idea of being taxed to change the climate is ridiculous.
The seasons come and the seasons go and no matter how much money is collected by those who are pushing this stupid idea we will not change the climate one bit.
This is dream time stuff. Let's put the money to better use and deal with problems that could use the money. The world certainly will go on regardless of the ratbag controllers who think they know better than the creator.

Yes.. but... Carbon is NOT a pollutant. It isn't nasty black stuff, its the building block of life and is the main constituent of all life on earth. Its is the only constituent of diamonds and graphite pencil lead.

Are people, plants, pencil leads and diamonds pollution?

If its carbon emissions we are talking about then WHICH compounds of carbon will be taxed? CO, CO2, CH4, or will CARBONATED soft drinks be counted as pollution?

Carbon and Carbon Dioxide are NOT pollutants. There is no such thing as Carbon pollution.

"As it deals with these issues, the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee could doubtless benefit from the ideas and experience of many in the Coalition"

Why should the coalition or anyone bother with this committee, its conclusion is already decided, it's just the size of the tax in question .. the author is using it as yet another attack on the coalition as if they are the ones raising a big new tax.

Senator Milne made it quite clear, you come to this committee already committed .. and the coalition says they are not .. so they have no place .. fine, the ALP will have to live with the fact they cannot share the culpability, because that's all this sneering attempt to bully the coalition is, more ALP rhetoric and words games, no care about nation building or society .. once again, no plan except to attack the coalition

we've seen the ALP's bipartisan approach, images flashed around the country of PM Rudd's staff turning their backs on Brendon Nelson, then the rest of the ALP supports joining them .. do you think after you all had a giggle that we would forget?

yep, that's politics ALP style .. now you need the coalition to stand beside you so you don't look quite so stupid kowtowing to the greens .. suck it up, you will go down in history as creating this yourselves.

And as for, "no one will suffer except the polluters", how naive do you think we are .. I have seen the polluters, and it is us .. do this BS to us, and we will keep you out of government for a very very long time.

one of the first things you learn in first year economics, is the tax on negative externalities only work if the market can turn to an alternative product for less cost than the tax. if the cost of tax can simply be passed on to consumer no change will occur.
i wish smart people would advance beyond first year economic text books, the world would be safer

The polluters will be taxed, If you are being supplied polluting items as a course of necessity, you will be compensated.
If you purchase non assential items that cause pollution, those items will have a pollution tax imposed on them.
Some people just can,t see past their nose, there,s something sinister hanging on every word. Doesn,t make for good discussion, it becomes imaginary.

Define “pollution” a597. The government classify carbon as pollution.

Is that due to lies or ignorance? The attempt is to tax carbon, which is the basis of all life on Earth.

If this fraud is implemented, then $10bn of taxpayers’ funds per annum will be handed over to the originator of the AGW fraud, the anti Western Civilization body, the United Nations, who propagated the lies on which this scam is based through its puppet, the IPCC.

Fortunately, Australians now recognise the truth, that labelling carbon “pollution” has no scientific basis and is nothing more than a lie aimed at defrauding taxpayers.

This is apart from the fact that human emissions have not been shown to have any but a negligible effect on climate. Our climate patterns have not varied from the days before humans produced emissions. Gore’s lie of CO2 causing warming is now shown by reality to be incorrect. Gore is reminded of this when he appears in public, to chants and placards of “Gore is a Liar” and “Gore is a Fraud”

Good luck to Juliar, the Red Pullet. She will need it to put this one over, because the majority of Australians are now aware of the attempted AGW fraud, and the suffering of farmers through the signing of the fraud based Kyoto Agreement, by her grub of a predecessor.

She may even achieve what Gore has achieved, if she perseveres. I would get a laugh out of that.

Carbon is the basis of all life on earth.
Nature had a balance of carbon in the atmosphere, but now that balance is being compromised.
Oil, Coal the two biggest contributers.
Get off of the merry go round, and have more choices, makes sense doesn,t it. Oil is on the outer, so put the pressure on and see what comes of it.
Nature is not going to come back this time without help.
Mans ever increasing hunger for gadgets has outstripped the growth of nature to fix any further pollutants.