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