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.