Around 80% of the population believe Global Warming is real.
Around 60% of the population believe Human activity is contributing.
Around 1% of the population believe we should all pay more tax to combat the problem.
Go figgur.

"Go figgur."

Maybe they figure, quite reasonably, that the gumment don't have the ability to control the globe's climate by taxing, especially since they intend to compensate those they tax?

The author correctly points to the need for investment in low or no carbon electricity generation, its transmission, and rapid transport. He then makes a fundamental error in asserting that the private sector does not have the capacity to invest in these areas. It does have that capacity and will invest provided risk is minimized and yield is maximized relative to other investment opportunities.

What escapes Mr Ewbank is that the one of the major purposes of pricing carbon is to effectively raise the price of fossil fuels to the point where private sector investment in these areas is made attractive. As long as production and use of fossil fuels, particularly coal, remains subsidized and relatively cheap, investment in development and use of clean technology will remain risky and unattractive without public sector assistance.

Pricing carbon by levying a tax on polluters (not individual taxpayers) not only raises the price of fossil fuels, it produces the revenue government needs to provide assistance which stimulates private sector capital investment in clean energy and transport alternatives.

It is a nonsense to argue, as Mr Ewbank does, that government – which means all taxpayers – should pay for development and use of clean energy and transport. Such investment should come from and be selected by the private sector, not government. The roll of government is to ensure that investment opportunities are made attractive and open to the private sector and that is what it is doing by pricing carbon.

The private sector will not and should not be expected to invest in a clean power station when higher profits can be earned from investing in a polluting coal fired power station. But if, by pricing carbon and removing subsidies, the cost of coal increases to the point that coal powered electricity yields less return than investing in a clean power station, investors will put their money in clean power.

Grim

The carbon tax is to be levied on the 1,000 largest polluters, not on individuals or households and the latter are to be compensated so as to make the effect on them neutral.

Herbert Stencil/Peter Hume

If either were genuinely interested in the scientific basis for anthropogenic global warming they could always refer to and read the wealth of scientific evidence available in the literature and on line at
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=percentage or
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming

Agnostic. I could make many points in response, but will restrict myself to asking a genuine question. You say: "As long as production and use of fossil fuels, particularly coal, remains subsidized".

What is the nature of the subsidies for coal? What subsidies are paid? By whom? To whom?

So far as I know, in NSW at least, there are NO subsidies for coal production sold for power generation.

So basically, the 1000 nasty polluters are going to give some of their profits to the Gov, for being naughty.
Being businesses, which are pretty much obliged to make a profit, when their overheads go up they will respond by putting prices up.
But that's okay, because the Gov. will use the money taken from the polluters to pay the consumers, to offset the higher prices.
Oh-kay.
But what about the 1001st company? Suddenly it's more competitive, because it isn't as naughty as the 1000, and doesn't have to pay the tax.
That means more sales for the small guy, and less for the big guy.
Well that's pretty cool. We all root for the underdog, don't we?
Except... what are the big guys going to do about being undercut by a smaller competitor?
Gee, let me think...