David wrote: "most will be compensated for the increase in price so there will be no incentive for them to reduce their use of electricity."

Wrong, because the increase in price will be so many cents per kWhr, but the "compensation" won't be. The "compensation" will avoid damage to the overall household budget but WON'T reduce the financial consequences of using more or less electricity.

What a ridiculous article.

In the tradition of the IPCC and its unscientific guess about carbon emissions, Andrew has an uneducated guess at the effect of the iniquitous carbon tax.

No matter, to Andrew, the idea is to distract from the fact that there is no basis for a carbon tax in science, or in economics.

The scientific proof predicted by the IPCC to be found to show the effect of human emissions, was the “hotspot” in the troposphere, which no scientific effort has been able to demonstrate. There is no proof that human emissions affect climate in any measurable way.

The natural CO2 cycle contains 3% human emissions. The natural variation is 10% so obviously the human emissions component has a negligible effect.

If Andrew urinated in Sydney Harbour, we would know it was polluted, but it would not be possible to demonstrate it scientifically, for the same reason that the effect of human emissions cannot be demonstrated; because the effect is negligible.

This fraud is pushed by the IPCC, the puppet of the UN, because it will mean a cash flow to the UN. If you look at Labor’s taking from the community by this fraudulent tax, and giving it back to “the families”, to buy support, there will still be a couple of billion left to hand over to the greatest parasite the world has ever seen, the United Nations.

Our cost of living, according to Juliar will rise by “zero point seven per cent”. Coincidentally the global warming upon which the fraud is based, amounted to zero point seven of a degree in temperature.

An insignificant rise, with no further rise for the last 12 years, despite increases in CO2 in the atmosphere, predicted by the IPCC to cause further warming. Such warming as there has been, like the carbon dioxide, has not been shown to be detrimental in any way.

There is no possible justification for a carbon tax.

@VK3AUU: 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.

It's disappointing to see a response like this. I expected the usual crowd not to get it, or more likely just to ignore it because it didn't chime with whatever their favourite conspiracy is today. But usually VK3AUU does. Andrew Leigh: if you watching, this response means it is likely you didn't explain it well to the average person.

VK3AUU - sometimes there things are easier to understand when taken to an extreme. So lets say that rather than rising the price of power by a small bit, the government multiplied it by a factor of 100. So instead of paying say $1000 a year, you would pay $100,000. But you now have $99,000 cash in the hand. So what do you do. Well most people say to themselves "if I switch my hot water to solar, switch off the heater and throw a few blankets on the bed, put in an expensive high efficiency aircon in the living room and switch off the rest, then I can use that $30K saved to pay for a golf membership (substitute your favourite vice here)".

The point is the relative price of electricity has gone up compared to other things, and life is always about choices. The carbon price means some things are going to look cheaper relative to electricity than they did before, and amazingly that also makes them more attractive.

The logic is pretty seductive once you get it. Besides, it's been demonstrated to work on other things.

@Ludwig: Once the changes are bedded in, that’s it.

I though it was pretty clear this isn't it, but evidently you didn't get the message. I don't know how you could have missed it as Abbott has been pounding on this point for some time. The price of carbon will keep going up, and up, and up. And so will the compensation of course. Abbott always forgets to mention that bit.

The elitist Labor Coalition assumes Australians are stupid and by omission and simplification can be easily hoodwinked.

An example of deceit by omission and simplification "When we raise the first homeowner grant, house sales go up."

You doubled it for first homebuyers of pre-existing housing and TRIPLED it for new housing.

Hardly the simple "raise" is it? From $6.8K to $21K, and it modified behavior slightly, amazing!

You believe incentivising will lead people by the nose to what you want, and big government needs clients, so come this way stupid, I mean citizen.

The GFC cheques were squandered and no one cared whether they bought carbon friendly, (my PA got another tattoo with her cheque, how green was that?) you are deceitful and tricky to claim people used the cheques to "go green".

People make decisions based on what they need, their quality of life, then their relatives and friends, then their local community, then their city/suburb/town, then their state and in the long run and last of all, the country let alone the world.

We're not all barking activists trying to save the world, it owes me, not the other way around.

Government has a duty to me, a duty, to provide, and that's why I pay taxes, I resent being told to modify my lifestyle so that a minority government trying to stay in power with no mandate for a great big new tax, can deceitfully play silly games with our society and our future.

We did not vote for redistribution of wealth, and it is clear now this is Gilliar's socialist vision, whatever it takes to get it, and the environmentalists have not yet realised that this is the main game not AGW, and the stupid egotistical Greens are just fascinated to be "important" (and have a price).

Useful idiots will defend it, that redistribution is good, when yesterday they were saying that's not the government's intent and saving the world from CO2 is.

More lies that do nothing for the environment, the ALP coalition has no credibility and is reduced to buying followers and votes.

If buying stuff you want or need cheaper is what it's all about and that seems to be the argument here, then why are there any brands left on our supermarket shelves besides "home brands"?

Surely if we're motivated to buy what's most economical, we'd buy the cheapest? That's the basis of the ALP's logic.

RPG has it right, it's about quality of life, we will not reduce what we believe is our minimum standard, and if you try to force us to for your idealist aims, we'll simply tell our representatives, this is not what we want and at the next chance, vote in someone who appears to be doing WHAT WE WANT!

We work hard to improve our lot, then get idealistic busybodies who demand we adhere to what they want and cannot understand they are now in a minority, so spend more (of our money) on the sales campaign then the sale is worth, do you think we don't notice something smells rotten there?

So much effort is going into selling this now and the fear everyone has is, what's next.

We don't believe anything the ALP says as they continually contradict themselves.

We do not want to be clones of the environmentalists or socialists or any other ists.

Snide comments and insulting anyone who doesn't see how clear everything is, matters not a whisker to the populace who have bigger things on their minds then wanting to be the first in the world to show how fast we can reduce our country to a disaster.

The task is not how well the selling is done, it is what is being sold.

The left believes it is some conspiracy or shock jock that is the problem, and their own policies are so wonderful there must be some other reason that everyone is not falling over for some of it?

Here's a hint, sneering at people who you are trying to convince, demonising them and calling them names, is not good sales technique.

It is not the customer's fault, it is the goods that are faulty.

grptland.
The author used the argument that people didn't buy more carbon intensive products with money previous distributions - but they clearly did. They simply did what they had always done, consumed more of the same goods they had always bought. Plasma TVs were a great favourite, so it is likely that this money greatly increased the sale of carbon intensive products. So he is incorrect.

You say people will want to buy Green goods because of price changes but the author says they won't have to because the carbon intensive goods are subsidised through the rebate. Your assumption that people buy on price alone is wrong.

Cash handouts meant to lessen the effect of the CT undermine it because its the Govt whose paying for the carbon intensive products not the consumer.

Eg If your favourite items goes up 2% why change to a slightly cheaper item when the Govt supplies you with that 2% difference? If you like Tim Tams and the Govt subsidises the price you won't buy a cheaper biscuit you like less.