I wonder if Saul isn't being a bit hard on Tony Abbott - given that Tony has a tough job trying to combat Gillard, the Labor machine and the Greens on the Carbon Tax, ETS, Mining Super Tax, deficit spending and the NBN, while still remaining sceptical about global warming, and seemingly also sceptical about market forces being given free reign to deal with reducing emissions. It is certain, however, that he has a strong focus on the national economy and our continuing industrial competitiveness.

Tony's task must be doubly difficult, being drawn as he must in trying to juggle two fundamentally competing ideologies - on the one hand as a national-conservative and family man, influenced by his religious beliefs and the influence of Bob Santamaria's philosophy, and on the other hand as the leader of a political machine having fundamentally an economic-conservative ideology. (Given the latter, Tony's criticism of our economists is somewhat counter-intuitive, and must have caused some angst within the Party.)

I disagree with Saul's criticism of direct action. Saul implies that this could not be applied utilising emission targets and market forces to achieve the required objectives (and coincidentally maintaining our social stability and our international competitiveness). Saul's interpretation of direct action focuses on government spending only, and this is simplistic, if not clearly erroneous.

As a national-conservative, Tony's policies would be expected to focus on maintaining Oz' national economy and competitiveness, where Ms G and Co's focus is on staying in power, satisfying the Greens and Independents, and on redistributing wealth from the top end of town. From a national viewpoint, Tony's approach makes greater sense, and it is only the implementation mechanism which remains in question.

Irrespective of whether one is sceptical about global warming or not, most, if not all, posters on OLO seem to be agreed that Ms G's carbon tax will do nothing to reduce emissions, and may only provide limited incentive for pursuing low-emission alternatives. It will certainly, of course, be one major bureaucratic nightmare to deliver as promised.

Curmudgeon
<There is simply no hope of concerted, effective international action, and never was>

This is nonsense, an international accord will have to be agreed to, notwithstanding that it's probably true that it's already too late to avoid close to worst-case scenarios. That is no plausible rationale for going on without let, or "adapting".
Merely "adapting" to the damage we can no longer prevent still requires deep cuts to emissions if we are to avoid an even worse situation, one that is beyond our ability to adapt to.

Unlike Eslake's economists, however, I don't see that "market-based" interventions or "direct action" will be of any effective use so long as "growth economics" is de rigueur. There is a fundamental correlation between economic growth (which requires actual material expansion=equals energy) and by-products/emissions. Similarly, every calorie of food consumed has its direct equivalent in oil.
And this is where all sides of the debate are wilfully obdurate. No amount of direct or market-based action is going to address the fundamental equation: economic growth = material growth = emissions. Indeed material growth (either ever-more conspicuous consumption or ever more consumers--in fact both) is vital to the growth paradigm.
It is blindingly obvious that the only way to substantially cut emissions (indeed, even stop the growth in emissions) is to shrink economies and cut consumption.
But the current system is fundamentally unable to do that; it's unthinkable. Indeed the current system is the direct cause of AGW, the engine.
Expecting market forces to address AGW is like feeding a hog more food and expecting it to defecate less!
All sides have to face the agonising reality; the party's over; we have to shrink materially and consume less.

The overwhelming majority of Australians do want a price on carbon dioxide.Carbon is not the problem nor is CO2.

The overwhleming majority of economists could not predict the GFC.Why should we listen them? The CO2 tax and the ETS has nothing to do with stopping the production of CO2.It is about a new derivative that Wall St and the bankers can profit from.Gillard has already pledged 10% of our carbon taxes to the UN.

If CO2 is the problem then tax the mining/oil companies as it comes out of the ground.Tax their profits.

We also need new Govts Banks. http://secretofoz.com/

Thankyou Saul; an eloquesnt summary of economists' views on carbon price and also of Abbott's dishonorable tactics of denialism. He tries to score cheap political points by negativism at any opportunity because he knows there are a significant minority to whom this strategy appeals.

I ask the neo-conservatives if you don't believe over 90% of qualified scientists and you also don't believe a similar portion of your own economic gurus of the market solution, then who is it you do believe? I suggest it is non expert reactionaries with huge egos and vested interests.

As for comments to the tune of 'we should not act until the rest of the world does', I ask: Is it right that we the wealthiest, highest per capita emitting, lowest taxed of OECD nations, should wait until the developing countries and the US enact a C price first? What sort of gutless amoral stance would that be?

Our enacting a carbon price like other civilized nations such as all of Europe and NZ will be a huge example to the rest of the world and encourage other nations to join in doing so.

but we sure are reducing something.
spindoc,
Of course, we're on track of reducing the intelligence of the masses & those who dictate to them.

Squeers

I'll repeat the basic point. There is simply no hope of any effective action in reducing emissions. In describing that statement as nonsense, you are confusing what you think simply has to happen with the obvious reality staring us all in the face.

You may think emissions have to be limited but China, India and the US, to name a few, just aren't going to do anything effective. If you believe the greenhouse stuff then adaption is the only option. You don't have any other option.