Sorry Professor but your logic and facts are haywire.

1. You say "When economic stimulus cheques were sent to millions of households during the global downturn, did families spend it all on high-carbon products? ......And when tax rates were cut in recent budgets, did taxpayers spend all the money on carbon-intensive commodities?
In each case, the answer is no"

...The answer is mostly YES. They bought plasma TVs in the thousands. They simply bought MORE of what they usually buy or something they wanted but couldn't afford, so their buying preferences DID NOT change.

2. Then you rebut your own logic by saying:

"But assistance offers a simple guarantee to most Australian households: if you want to KEEP BUYING THE SAME THINGS, you'll be able to do so"

...This is contrary to the purpose of the tax and actually supports Tony Abbott's view of it being a money go round...

3 'Green' energy products are often MORE not less expensive than 'high carbon' competition so there is already a disincentive to buy.

The price is right. Wow, isn't that the name of a very light entertainment TV show?

I know it is something like that, & on the one occasion I saw it, it made about as much sense as a carbon tax.

Atman wrote: "their buying preferences DID NOT change."

That's because there was no carbon tax to change relative prices.

"... if you want to KEEP BUYING THE SAME THINGS, you'll be able to do so".

But you won't want to, because relative prices will change.

"'Green' energy products are often MORE not less expensive than 'high carbon' competition..."

Yes, and a carbon price will address that problem.

Compensation doesn't undo the price signal because the price signal is conditional while the compensation is not: you pay the price of the carbon tax to the extent that you sponsor carbon emissions; but you get the compensation whether you sponsor carbon emissions or not.

Green energy is not green nor cheaper in the making of the equipment to produce green energy. Every village idiot can tell that much.

OK Andrew, let’s assume that the new carbon pricing will lead to people changing their habits and reducing carbon emissions a little. But to what extent?

It is bound to be pretty small.

A couple of problems….

Once the changes are bedded in, that’s it. There is no planned ‘next step’ whereby further incentives to reduce emission will be implemented, is there? These rather piffling changes at the personal level will be all we get.

Population growth will continue at a rapid rate in Australia. The number of carbon polluters will continue to grow. So despite small per-capita reductions, the increasing number of ‘capitas’ will mean that total national emissions will still rise to the extent of well and truly overwhelming any small personal reductions.

Gillard was extraordinarily remiss in not including the population growth factor in her carbon tax strategy and winding immigration back as a fundamental part of it.

Then we’ve got her assurances that the coal industry is alive and well. I wonder how much more this industry is going to actually expand before the mooted wind-back.

A red-neck anti-environmental government is trying to give itself a green veneer while entrenching its worship of our continuous growth fossil-fuel-powered economic system.

There are 22 million Australians out there using electricity, not just 500 companies. Of that 22 million, most will be compensated for the increase in price so there will be no incentive for them to reduce their use of electricity. As the population increases, there will actually be an increase in the demand for household power. To get a reduction in the deemed amount of greenhouse gases, we will actually be relying on buying carbon credits from overseas, we wont be doing anything to accomplish this by our own endeavors.

The population at large are the major polluters and if an reduction in greenhouse gases is to happen, it is they who should be feeling the pain, not the power generating companies who are merely supplying the demand.

David