There is absolutely no point in having an election to get rid of carbon tax. That's because each person's vote is too small too make a difference.

I agree that a carbon tax of $23 likely won't have much effect in terms of reducing emissions in Australia. That's what my research shows too (http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/eenccepwp/1111.htm). But the Australian government is planning on two things:

1. Their renewable energy target and other complementary measures, which raises the real cost of climate policy but would reduces the remaining emissions that need to be cut.

2. That most of the reductions will be met by forestry schemes in Indonesia etc.

Luciferase

No, its a straight waste of time and money. As Tim Curtain points out, it is simply too small to make any real difference.. all it will do is add to costs without changing behaviour. I don't care whether Gillard believes in the tax or not, but if she does all that proves is that she's totally deluded.

And that reminds me. Tim Curtain pointed to various problems with costs in green power, but he forgot about overall costs. As has been shown elsewhere, because green power is intermmittent, even over wide areas, all of the conventional power plants have to be kept operational (if not actually operating - although most would). In other words, all the green power plants would duplicate existing conventional plants. This adds far more to costs than the carbon tax.

As the only plants that can be powered up or down at short notice without serious penalties to make up for shortfalls in green power generation is gas, a great deal of new plant would have to be gas. Thus existing requirements to generate 20 per cent of power from green sources by 2020 will have a far greater affect than the tax.

Then there is a whole other layer of absurdity.. If it has an effect on emissions so what? Australian emissions count for nothing and ther is no global-wide attack on carbon.

The whole concept is absurd nonsense.

I worry about any article purporting to be serious yet beginning by referring to Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan with sarcasm. Rather demeans the data that proceeds.

But even if the economic data did show - and I do not for one second accept that it does - that the Carbon Tax will have no impact on emmissions, it seems that all its opponents conveniently forget the tremendous psychological and political effect its introduction will have.

Not here in Australia, but around the world.

Finally, Australia, the world's worst per capita polluter will be taking action. It will resound in Washington, because we are a close ally, and one of the few who give comfort to the extreme Right's antagonism to any kind of environmental action, e.g. the Republican party's determination to utterly defang the EPA.

When our Carabon Tax policy was first announced, it was all over the US poltical blogs and website.

Oh yes, it will matter, alright.

But think on this, Oh Naysayer, what happens if all other countrie that do not have a serious CO2 abatement strategy hang back and we all continue on as we are?

We can get a clue to the answer from today's headlines that new German data unequivably shows that arctic sea ice will be gone withing three decades( The Age 13/9). The researchers assert that it is beyond doubt that this is the result of human action.

The fact is that neither you nor I can say with absolute certainty whether or not the Carbon Tax will be a resounding success.

But one thing I am certain of. We urgently and desperately need to act, and act now.

The Carbon Tax is a good start.

Curmudgeon,

"($23/tonne)...it is simply too small to make any real difference.. all it will do is add to costs without changing behaviour."

Then the amount will gradually rise, with compensatory measures, until behaviour responds.

Gas will supercede coal on the way to where we're going, that is when the rising cost of diminishing fossil fuels interesects with the tax avoidance incentive I previously described. The aim of pricing carbon is to bring on a cleaner future sooner than inevitability (depletion of fossil fuels) will force upon us.

We can continue to export fossil fuels to countries that are not as far along this path as we. In the end, whether we burn them or others do, they will be consumed at an increasingly faster rate to keep economies growing, until they are gone. By then, Australia can be well on the path towards an alternative future if we set the foundations now.

"Then there is a whole other layer of absurdity.. If it has an effect on emissions so what? Australian emissions count for nothing and ther is no global-wide attack on carbon."

A world-wide attack does exist, and will strengthen in the face of the problems we face. To argue that relative minnows should share no responsibility in an attempt at solution is an immature position and can only weaken the attack needed.

Curmy, if it as simple to you as there is no problem and "The whole concept is absurd nonsense", then you must be comfortable about leaving our kids to a forseeable, knee-jerk future. If that is not so, would you please put up your proposal to avoid this?

Tim/Tom

So, you're still at it after this:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12137#209312