It seems strange to make carbon intensity the increasing basis of the tax system. Thus on Planet Earth the tax system is based on carbon but on some other planet in the galaxy the tax could be on silicon or whatever. I won't buy into household compensation but I am coming to a view on compensation for trade exposed industries. That view is that we should have carbon tariffs.

Firstly there is the danger that the carbon adjustment will be manipulated as protectionism in disguise. However it seems clear that manufacturing, metals smelting and other heavy industry is going to move offshore to countries that don't give a damn about emissions, 'dirty deeds done dirt cheap'. We send both iron ore and coking coal to China and it comes back as steel. This is not just the low wage advantage but the lack of serious carbon tax in other countries. Therefore that steel should be carbon taxed at the the border, the result being fewer local jobs lost and less emissions worldwide. Border adjustment has to be a key element of compensation.

I would not dream of critiquing Geoff's analysis of carbon tax compensation, but his article underlines, yet again, the absurdity of the government announcing a policy with no details of any kind..

The second best move from here would be for the government to announce some details, although the best move would be to drop the proposal altogether as manifestly pointless.

"This consumption model eliminates the need for messy, expensive and discriminatory 'special deals',..."

What consumption model? This article goes around in such circles as to confuse even Einstein himself, and leads to only one possible conclusion - NO CARBON TAX! and NO ETS!

Offset increased consumption costs by reducing income tax? = C tax has to replace lost income tax = static revenue, but increase in CPI = costs still passed on by producers = no impact on CO2.

Reduce GST rate to reduce C tax impact on CPI? = lost revenue, but increased purchasing power = increased CPI again! (No impact on CO2)

Reduced value of savings, investments, pensions, and superannuation savings = BETTER THINK OF A BETTER IDEA! (No impact on CO2)

Tariffs?, Taswegian - not bad, but will still lose jobs and investment. (Also, no impact on CO2)

Drop the whole idea, Curmudgeon - best idea of the lot. (No impact on CO2, but no unnecessary pain, bureaucracy and confusion.)

When are we going to get real!? IF the idea is to reduce net CO2 emissions then the people will have to decide to suffer some costs - for there are only two available avenues - reduce consumption (which is not going to happen by increasing costs, particularly if there is compensation - did increased tobacco tax reduce smoking? NO), but this reduction can only happen with low emission alternatives, like eco-cars, buses, trains, planes, industry, and, secondly, through introduction of low emission electricity production (in homes, businesses, and power plants). All requires investment, which is not going to happen at the big end of town without a carbon cap and associated penalties, and not generally without government grants or subsidies.

If we do this, but the rest of the world hangs back, then we'll feel good about it but still go to hell in a hand-basket with the rest in the end.

So we are taking money away from people and giving it all back again in order to produce a change in behaviour that will have no effect in solving a problem that is imaginary anyway...

I don't know what Greg Combet is smoking, but I want some.

We do NOT need a "carbon" tax, the government is all ready raking in to much GST TAX it should be no more than 5% !

What we do need is a new political party that has intelligence, integrity and allegiance to our country and its people. We certainly do not have one now, neither Labor, Liberal/National or any other. Whether the carbon production is a problem or not, I can't see how the peurile attempts being sugested is going to achieve anything except another tax, and I haven't seen any intelligence even in the way they are applying the company tax or the personal tax, they still have excessive salaries and other incomes that they complain of, and still have thousands of wage earners who can get work only two or three days a week and our governments chortle over the 5% of unemployment that shows up on their books. The Parties are both trying to destroy each other and the economy as well. We can only hope they succeed in the former.

I would like to know how much the scheme will cost the population as a whole.
I would also like to know by how much will it reduce the global
temperature in say 50 years, 100 years or a thousand years ?

To make the calculation simpler just the effect of Australia will do.

If that question cannot be answered, then what is the point of it all ?

Bazz
A sensible first question for which there is and will be, much debate.

Your second? I wrongly assumed you were aware of the radiative properties of long-lived green-house gases.

Andrew Bolt deliberately misrepresented the science to make the point you are now making.

If it makes it simpler: the aim is to limit average global temperature rise due to AGW to 2 degrees centigrade.

In other words Bazz, it's a global problem - not just an Australian problem.

Geoff, both this article and your article in today’s The Australian seem like fence sitting.

You make much sense when you address the goals a CO2 tax is trying to achieve and you offer many economic variables and permutations that might come into play to achieve those goals. What you do not offer and perhaps cannot, is which of these many and complex permutations might work against which goals.

There is a simpler way. Tell us how this has all worked out in Europe? That way we could follow their successful example, or not as the case might be.

Many in Australia find it difficult and frustrating to listen to the endless stream of eco-babble knowing we are at least fifteen years behind Europe. If they have not made it work, why should we try?

Bonmot,
I know it is a world wide function, but I am asking how much will our
efforts affect the result.
I realise others will have their effect, but what proportion of the
effect could we claim as our own ?

You see there is a problem that has not been taken into account.
The data for fossil fuels input to the computer models that project
the temperature rise are erroneous.
Our effect may not change much but the world wide effect could be large.

The realistic data compiled by the Uppsala Universities Global Energy
Group for available fossil fuels is a lot less than the IPCC figures.
That being so, how can anyone specify how much CO2 should be reduced ?

http://aleklett.wordpress.com/2010/03/01/validity-of-the-fossil-fuel-production-outlooks-in-the-ipcc-emission-scenarios/

Since this paper was published last year I have not seen any report
that the IPCC has run its computer model against the new data.
It seems to be useless to discuss the matter until the computer models
are reun with the new data.

Bonmot,
Did you see Catalyst last night ?
I find it hard to believe that we can cope with oil depletion and a carbon tax all at the same time.

As depletion takes hold all spare cash will disappear into higher fuel
and food costs and will simply not be available to pay a carbon tax.
In the US in 2008 it was high fuel and food costs that triggered the
so called Great Financial Crash when mortgages could not be paid.

We have the same senario to repeat, but we are adding a carbon tax on top !
Suicide, would not be too strong a word for it.

Hello Bazz, been busy. No, I did not see Catalyst. However, I believe I understand where you are coming from and don't entirely disagree - although I would dispute "it was high fuel and food costs that triggered the so called Great Financial Crash when mortgages could not be paid" - but that's another story altogether.

The way I see it, our 'developed' societies have been using and abusing our energy resources for the last 200 years without fully realising the unintended consequences of our collective action/inaction. It is not sustainable in a future world, for a variety of reasons.

You would have seen me bang-on about GHG's and their impact on climate - all of which I fervently hold true. Nevertheless, whether anyone believes in AGW or not really is not at issue - I think you would agree. It seems to me that politicians, economists and captains of industry want to maintain 'business as usual' when clearly we (humanity) can not - we only have one world to play with and it has to do us (hopefully) for a long time yet. In other words, the planet doesn't end in 2100.

You raise the issue of peak-oil and carbon taxes. Bazz, the cost of energy is going to rise, period - whether we like it or not (and I defy any politician from whatever colour to say it won't, or it should be capped, or it is 'crap'. We have to find a way of funding alternative sources of energy to our hydrocarbons and slowly wean ourslves off coal, oil and gas. Ok, it won't/can't happen over night but we have to make a start. To be sure, we have to be proactive about it - not negative or hypercritical.

Btw, I'm sure we will see some more detail in the next IPCC report. It won't be pretty and those with their head firmly stuck in the sand will again decry foul. As for suicide? Perhaps we as a species really do have a death wish.

bonmot,

I reckon you hit a home run with your last post today. Good work. I don't think there is much more one can say. Just hope some of the powers that be could be listening in.

Saltpetre, your analogy to a game is, unfortunately, apt.

>> Just hope some of the powers that be could be listening in. <<

You've got to be joking - the "powers that be" can't see past the next election cycle or shareholder's meeting!

Pawns are even more, dumbed down.

bonmot,

We can only live in hope. At least the movement against a carbon tax appears to be gaining momentum. Fingers crossed, sanity may yet prevail.

Cheers.

Saltpetre

>> Fingers crossed, sanity may yet prevail. <<

Absolutely!

>> At least the movement against a carbon tax appears to be gaining momentum. <<

As I say: "Pawns are even more, dumbed down."

Corollary?

I think Australia should have a carbon tax/ETS. The debate is/should be, about the timing.

Regards