Bravo Chris! Finally someone saying quite succinctly "the emperor is not wearing clothes". Is anyone taking bets on how long it will be before Juliar floats the idea of an FTS?

I agree that international trading of carbon credits is an invitation to fraud. For example Norway pays Bolivia not to raze a certain acreage of forests so the Bolivians chopped down and burned the adjoining forests at a faster rate. Australia is in the rare position that domestic CO2 of 540 million tonnes a year is less than CO2 from exported coal and LNG, likely to be over 600 m.t.. Therefore I think Australia should carbon tax fossil fuel exports. The government of the importing country can ask for a carbon tax refund to be paid into a suitable green program. The other countries don't really have many choices of reliable alternative supply so they may go along with it. It hurts us financially as well as them if they then reduce coal imports. However the planet benefits as a whole. *

The other perspective is equity; fat people denying food to the starving. Australians emit 20 tonnes of CO2 a year per man, woman and child whereas for other countries the figure is more like 7 tonnes. We are asking them to cut back?

* The UK just had its warmest ever April. Must be the cooling trend.

I agree, especially with Taswegian, having wondered who pays EFT on fossil fuel exports, particularly all the coal in the trains passing through Toowoomba. Does the mining company pay, the Australian govt. or the country receiving the fossil fuel?

A carbon tax or an ETS, as policies, have so many problems that it is difficult to know where to start. The problem Taswegian pointed to is just the start, when it comes to international trading. Although I'm no admirer of the author's analogies he's probably right that if you actually want to reduce carbon emissions, as opposed to grandstand for the green lobby, then there are easier, more effective ways to do it.

Perhaps legislative sanctions on major power generators?

However, with the debate winding down and the public switching off in droves, when (perhaps if) the government dumps its carbon tax proposal, that may well be the last we will hear of any big-ticket efforts to control emissions in Aus.

A few comments:

1. Opinions about climate change will inevitably colour views on a carbon tax or an ETS. If you accept the scientific view, which I do, then the need for every country to dramatically reduce its emissions is clear and will happen - the only question is one of timing.

2. A carbon tax or ETS are not about just changing people's behaviour. The main motivator is to change polluters behaviour. The way both work is to provide a financial incentive to polluters to change their behaviour. In the case of energy providers this is done by making polluting energy production (like coal fired power stations) more and more expensive until it actually becomes cheaper to switch to renewable energy where no carbon tax needs to be paid and no pollution permits need to be purchased. For energy users the incentive is to use energy more efficiently.

3. An ETS is theoretically preferable since it gives Government the power to regulate the amount of pollution allowed each year by restricting the number of permits available. The market then works out how best to achieve the reduction. Generally the free market is much better at this than Governments which have an extremely poor record at picking "winners". I agree that trading permits outside of the home country does not seem the way to go.

4. The other argument that is advanced is why should Australia reduce emissions when there is no world agreement. Apart from the moral argument there is the self-interest argument. The forces of climate change will drive more and more extreme weather, and public opinion will at some point drive politicians to act dramatically to cut CO2 emissions. This could be next year or more likely within the next 10 years. In addition technological advancement and increasing carbon taxes will act together at some point to make renewable energy cheaper than fossil fuels. You can also throw into the mix peak oil if you wish. Doesn't it make sense for Australia to start preparing now for this new world? I think the answer is obvious.....

It is fanciful to claim that "The forces of climate change will drive more and more extreme weather...". Not even warmist scientists give that much credence.

"In addition technological advancement and increasing carbon taxes will act together at some point to make renewable energy cheaper than fossil fuels. "

Given that wind energy is unreliable, inefficient and at least three times more expensive than, and solar energy is unreliable, inefficient and at least ten times more expensive than, coal-fired energy, it is going to take generations for technological advancement to make such renewable energy competitive, if at all.

It is economic folly -- in fact, draconian -- to use carbon taxes and ETS schemes to penalise coal-fired energy generation so as to equilibrate its price with wind and solar energy prices.

There is no scientific or economic justification for levying those taxes. Australia is going to pay dearly indeed for the Government's folly of implementing those taxes purely for the purpose of appeasing the Greens

Thanks Rich2 for imparting some sense and bringing up the issue of the moral argument. There is a moral imperative for Australia, as the highest emitter on a per capita basis of greenhouse gas emissions, to do something and to be a model for the rest of the world. A carbon tax WILL make individuals change their behaviour. If it is added to the cost of petrol, for instance, they may choose to take the bus to work. If it is added to the cost of electricity, then they may turn off their electrical appliances at the wall and use them less. They may invest in solar power. I think the carbon tax is a great initiative and my only hope is that it will be set high enough to make renewables competitive with coal power.

"If you accept the scientific view, which I do, then the need for every country to dramatically reduce its emissions is clear and will happen - the only question is one of timing."

Well, there are scientific views, and then there are scientific views: yours is unfortunately in a minority which is steadily dwindling every day. Nothing depicts the desperation of the AGW alarmists quite so poignantly as their desperate attempts to portray themselves as a majority and a 'consensus' instead of what they are: a small gang of fanatics and a bandwagon-load of opportunistic followers who are bailing out even as we speak.

popnperish - rich2 managed to read all of the above material in the posts and in the article seemingly without a word of it penetrating. His post is simply a restatement of the green orthodoxy without acknowleding, let alone refuting, any counter arguements.

As for us being obligated because we are a big emitter per capita, one of the reasons for our emissions is that we don't have any nuclear power reactors, like France, England, Germany, Canada and the US. Another is that our power industry uses mainly coal rather than gas. So if we switch to gas we are suddenly no longer a major per-capita emitter, and do we still have that over-riding moral imperative?

More importantly do voters and power consumers know that they are paying for what is essentially an ideological gesture, that can have only the smallest of effects on industrial emissions.

The reality that rich2 and others simply do not want to face is that this issue has now coooled noticeably (pun intended). I recently read one analysis in the LA Times, over the net, that President Obama has stopped referring to the environment altogether in his speeches. Time to abandon all hope that anything globally will be done about emissions.

Curmudgeon
Without going into the amount of greenhouse gases emitted in the building and decommissioning nuclear reactors, would we still have a moral obligation to act even if our emissions were less (by using nuclear power)? Yes, because historically we have put a disproportionate amount emissions into the atmosphere. And anyway, we still emit a huge amount through transport and the fact that we have bigger houses than anyone.
A carbon tax is not an ideological gesture - it is a concrete measure to reduce emissions, even if they don't start reducing for a year or two.
Yes, the issue has cooled (thanks to you lot) but the issue has not gone away. Carbon dioxide is still rising, sea-levels are still rising and the temperature (as measured over decades to even out annual variation) is still rising. And if we don't start acting now, we may be faced with runaway climate change.

"A carbon tax is not an ideological gesture - it is a concrete measure to reduce emissions, even if they don't start reducing for a year or two."
What a load of rot. This proposed tax will little, or no, effect on our emissions. Not in one or two years or even ten. It will have absolutely no effect on climate change. It is merely a token gesture to say "look at us." - As if the rest of the world really gives a toss about what Australia does or does or does not do. Time for a reality check.

Sorry Sparkyq, but where is your evidence for your assertion that a carbon tax won't reduce emissions? If it is set at $70, then wind will be competitive with coal and you will see a massive shift away from coal towards wind and other renewables.
And what Australia does IS of importance. Every country is looking to good examples of what can be done and before long, we may well have an international emissions trading scheme anyway. If Australia isn't ready with its own ETS or equivalent, she'll be left out of the world's trading community.

Don't forget this is the biggest 'moral'dilemma of this century. Forget about wars, abortion, child molestation, aids, famine, etc,etc. Green religion produces a self righteous outward expression often accompied by violence when they don't get their own way.This tax is about making a few egos feel like they have done something useful and yet has the potential to destroy our economy and keep pensioners cool through the winter and stifling through the summer.

runner
That was just an irrational rant. You have to do better than that.

popnperish - I'm sure a carbon tax in Australia would probably reduce emissions in Australia. The problem is that amounts to next to no reduction world wide. So it is, in effect, an ideological gesture (perhaps not an empty one as there would be pain but no gain).

As there is now no chance of any world-wide action on emissions, the time for this sort of action has passed - if there was ever any time for it.

I would like to remind all, that the Opposition is not objecting to something be done about carbon.

They are only criticising how it is to be done.

The Opposition is proposing that the government directly interfere in the economy to bring about change. They are somehow suggesting that the tax pool is like the magic pudding and that it will cost the taxpayer nothing. The alternative, if it is to cost no more, other government programmes will have to be axed, as there is sadly no magic pudding.

The majority of Australians, according to polls still want something done.

The word "tax" seems to be the biggest problem.

The shame is that what is being propose by the government is what can be perceive as a tax on a small number of large polluters, that is to involve over three to five years to a price on carbon or as it is also called a ETS.

It is calculated, that even without compensation, the impost on most will be much less that than what occurred after the introduction of the GST.

PopnPerish

Look at Windsor, Brown, Turnbull, Oakshott or Gillard and you will get the drift. They all believe the warmist astrogolers. Mind you Julia could change her mind at any time.

astrogolers?

undidly?

Oh Runner:) Yes:0 wash you mouth out with soap")

"green religion produces a self righteous outward expression often accompied by violence when they don't get their own way.

Now I've heard it all.

LEAP