Simple answers:
1. Nothing Australia does will have any real impact on the global situation, except
2. Australian coal is the cleanest in the world, so even if it is an interim measure, to encourage export will actually help reduce global emissions, as the only alternative is to substitute dirtier coal. A considerable part of our coal is coking coal, by the way, and not used for power generation.
3. USA, India and China are only three of the nations who will continue increasing their emissions well into the forseeable future, so all the disasters you mention will occur regardless of anything we do.
So - it seems that we are doomed, no matter what.
Of course, we might take some effective action - if we face reality and help make the lot of suffering millions around the world whose lot will become even worse if we continue our futile bickering and avoidance of the real issues.

Mike, it's looking like the "doomed" option is getting more popular than the solution. I for one would like to see the whole "warmertariat" disappear in a puff of carbon dioxide. Possibly the best contribution they could make to the planet.

As an observer I’m currently watching a group of Australian’s opening their CO2 Tax Package like is was a Christmas present.

Oh! What did you get? Look, look, I got an electricity rebate.

Lucky you but look what I got, what, what, show me show me?
I got an exemption on domestic petrol use.

Wow, what about the kids, did they get their “future legacy” back? Not sure about that, there’s no sign of it in the box.

Santa is soooo good to us

These are good questions. I suspect we might get 5% CO2 reductions anyway by 2020 if the general economic downturn continues. CCS is a mythological beast and I hope the PM doesn't invoke it in the long awaited speech on Sunday.

Clearly the guvmint isn't thinking ahead. One of the first problems will be when power companies and steel mills ask why they should pay carbon tax on the very same coal that goes to India and China without paying carbon tax. I think coal and LNG exports should be carbon taxed and the importing countries can ask for a refund to pay for green programs. That might reduce the perceived need for local compensation though I'm not sure that need is merited.

A carbon tax in the $20-$30 range might spur some minor efficiency gains but it won't lead to major changes in generation technology. It seems necessary though to get the ball rolling.

I thought this was a great article. Not least because on the radio this morning I heard Wayne Swan carrying on about what a great future the coal industry has.

Amongst other things Wayne Swan said:
"There's strong investment going into coal and strong job creation in coal for a long time to come,"
"The fact is the future of this industry is really strong."

I was thinking that a fairer thing to say would be that the coal industry has got a good future only IF it can work out how to do Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) or comes up with some other way to get rid of the CO2 generated (thought I had read something about work with algae in this space). However as this article points out the CCS option looks doomed as it makes coal generated electricity too expensive versus alternatives. Other options are clearly in their infancy with unknown outcomes.

Seems to me that this was the time for the Labour Government to be honest with the Australian people and improve the maturity of the debate. It is already on the nose so you might say it has nothing to lose.

Why not treat the people as mature adults and say something like: "... the long term future of the coal industry depends on the industry working out how to ensure burning coal doesn't push CO2 into the atmosphere. It needs to invest in research and pilot plants as a matter of extreme urgency."

Instead to my mind Wayne Swan has resorted to the usual spin and half truths with the hope that voters don't twig that it just doesn't make sense as this article points out so clearly.

I note by contrast that Sen Bob Brown of the Greens has the guts to be honest:

Sen Brown said he did not believe the carbon tax would close coal mines immediately. "But that has to be the outcome. The coal industry has to be replaced by renewables," he said.

Who therefore is the most honest politician, which is apparently what everyone says they want?

Mike - it all makes good sense if you realise these are political concessions made to appease the green part of the electorate. There is no possibility that any emissions target will be met globally. The points you raise would only be apparent to a tiny fraction of voters, ergo they don't matter.

But emissions will not be reduced. So if the projections for CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere given business as usual scenarios are right, and that various assumptions concerning water vapour in the atmosphere built into all the models are right, then temperatures might go up by something like the forecast amount.

If you believe all those ifs then mitigation strategies would make far more sense, rather than trying to reduce emissions.. but we're playing politics here, not trying to make sense.

The good intent of this article is obvious.
However, the clear lack of knowledge of the chemistry of coal fired power stations and the use of coal to produce metalurgical coke seriously weakens any conclusions reached.
A very high proportion of Australian coal exported is metalurgical coal. It is used in the production of steel.The world cannot avoid the use of metalurgical coal if we wish to continue to use steel in modern society. There is no serious alternative to the use of metalurgical coal
The proposal to completely discontinue export Australian of coal is based on profound ignorance of science which used to be understood by any competent Year 10 pupil.
To base an economic argument on a such an inadequate understanding of science is utter futility however good the economic modeling might be

Mike Pope, an attempt to impose a tax, based on fraud, will generate quite a lot of inconsistency and untruth.

Your article, in the face of the reality that there has been no warming for almost 15 years, despite the dire predictions of the mendacious IPCC, puts forward a lot of baseless nonsense.

You say: “If we pursue 'business as usual', average global temperatures are likely to exceed 3°C by 2100. Consequently tipping points will be passed with respect to slow feedbacks such as melting of polar ice caps, ocean acidification and release of methane in the Arctic.”

If we pursue business as usual, the contribution of Australia to CO2 emissions is negligible and will make no difference, even if the assertions about the effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas had not been shown to bear no relation to the real world.

The contribution by human emissions to the natural CO2 cycle are 3% of the total. The natural variation is 10%, which is the reason that human emissions have not been shown to have any significant effect on climate.

The whole assertion of CAGW is based on the pathetic guess by the IPCC that it is “very likely”. The predicted “hot spot” announced at the time they asserted “very likely” has not been shown to exist, for the simple reason that the IPCC was wrong.

There is no scientific basis to assert that human emissions have any but a negligible effect on climate, Mike, so the basis for action on Australia’s emissions is non existent.

Mike Pope makes Very good point. However the Chinese are now blending cleaner Oz black and coal for making electricity which is cleaner. By how much I do not know.

What I do know, is the Chinese have tightened their environmental regulations. Also most Chinese coal is very old and is tightly compressed which means it releases a lot of heat , when burned and has little moister left. Indeed, blending did not make economic sense prior to 2003. Because coal prices have doubled in the last five years. More new and more efficient coal blending facilites are being built in China. (Source Petrocom Energy, Bus age p10, 18-6-2011).

Another reason for reduced emission is that the blended coal is burnt in large number of new power stations being built in China that use best practice provided by foreign companies as China the closes down their own old and inneficient power stations.

The author is obviously a willing and mindless follower of the one true religion. Does he understand the implications of increasing costs on the coal mining industry? It seems not. We can be wiped out of competitiveness overnight by excessive costs. Without a mining industry our export income would slip to a level similar to Angola or Iraq (50bn)

You missed two important questions: 1) Even if the AGW alarmists are correct, what effect will our $2000-a-year carbon tax have on average global temperatures in the next, say, 100 years? .002 degrees, anyone? And 2) How can anyone in their right minds think this is anything but a vast ripoff?

"Taxpayers have an expectation that their money is spent efficiently, effectively and in as manner that achieves the outcomes stated by government, "

Not necessarily, they voted for Labor didn't they?

What looks at coming out as a carbon tax has so many exemptions, compensation and direct action, that it looks to be far from revenue neutral, and a huge impost on the taxpayer. It is bastardised beyond recognition.

"... climate scientists continue to warn us that 'business as usual' is no longer an option..."

Well not quite true;

According to Robert Kaufmann,Heikki Kauppi, Michael Mann and James Stock

'... it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008...'
and 'furthermore, global temperature declined 0.2C between 2005 and 2008.'

Now factor in this years coldest winter in the northern hemisphere in 100 years and the coldest start to winter since the 1980s in the southern hemisphere and global warming starts to look like a fizzer.