funny how the Liberals are often been accused of being 'born to rule'or the ruling class. Here we have a bunch of left leaning pseudo intellectuals who have maqnipiulated data, censored debate, know the vast majority of the population don't want this tax, know it will cost jobs and yet still intend to impose this tax after blantanly lying to the electorate. On top of this we had the PM tell the PM she stabbed in the back to drop or delay this tax. Only those whose hate for Abbott blinds them of any reason could possibly think this tax is a good thing.

The only thing about Australia anyone overseas will notice is our incredible level of stupidity, blind faith and ego, and our desire to be taxed (oh please tax us more! It's like members of a religious sect demanding to be punished for their "sins" .. oh wait)

No one else on the planet actually begs for and even protests to be taxed. Australians actually marched, organized by a lobby group paid for by nebulous sources and of course, government, demanding more tax for all - we're a freak show, that's why we get world wide media attention, not because they think we're so wonderful.

The world is not waiting daily to see what would the Australians do? Geez, get over yourselves!

If you think anyone overseas is going to emulate our idiocy, you really are stupid.

hey, I could be wrong, tell me how many countries are lining up to do what we're doing, at the level we are .. influenced by us doing it first.

Mind you, if you are looking to do a bit of economical migration, clearly we have more money than sense .. another pull factor at work.

Curmudgeon, go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax (go to the "Implementation" heading) and read about who is in and who is out on carbon pricing. The momentum is in my direction, not yours. China and India are in and America will follow when it sorts itself out, I predict.

Re price signals, is your point that there is no need to set the foundations for an less carbon-based economy until the price signals (on gas, particularly) arrive? If so You are not getting my last post. Also, emissions in the meantime (ie until said price signals arrive)don't seem to register with you, because the climate science is wrong anyway, right? I'm sure this is the fundamental point at which we disagree.

A $23/tonne introductory price will not move mountains, but it's a start. Legislation needs to be in place now followed by a longer term shift towards higher pricing. A somewhat higher price intersecting rising price signals will change behaviour in Australia and thereby shift us away from a carbon based economy in timely readiness for a future without fossil fuels. We get a better tax system as a bonus, not more taxation as some here just keep insisting.

That future will arrive much faster than you think because of compounding increase in consumption of fossil fuels per capita coupled with a compounding increase in world population.

I see no censorship here, runner, or people running dodgy numbers. The latest poll I saw was that the majority want something done on climate change and I note that Mr Abbott says he wants to do it, just differently to what is going to be done. How is a pseudo-intellectual different to a real one, and are they all lefties? Just asking.

Tim, you have stated in your introductory and concluding paragraphs that you are a global warming sceptic, working from the premise that it's unneccessary to do anything about it. Hence you are using statistics to (I believe unsuccessfully) 'prove' your argument against a carbon price. Nevertheless I thank you for putting it.

It is not reasonable to use 'high cost scenarios' for RE's when clearly costs are coming down rapidly and and cost efficient wind, biomass and to a lesser extent solar generation are already being constructed in Australia(and I'm not trying to say that rooftop solar is cost efficient yet).

That is due in large part to the Renewable Energy Certificates which at about $38/ MWh (1 MWh coal fired = about 1t CO2e). So when RECs are added to the carbon price of $23/t this comes to an effective carbon price of over $60/ tonne. You should apply this figure to the low cost scenarios when discussing the economics of renewables Tim. Australia has plenty of 'world's best' wind and solar resources within economic distances from our main cities so it's not right to infer that our power stations will be built at 'high cost'. (Though I realise it's convenient for to compare 'high with high' when high for coal - a mature tehchnology - is not much higher than low, if you get my drift).

'Energy price inelasticity' is one of your main arguments Tim. Thanks Taswegian, Luciferase and Bjelly for your counter comments on price elasticity, and also the fact that the carbon price will rise until sufficient renewable energy is produced. I add that vehicle fleet emissions in Europe are less than 2/3 those of Australia's (DIT,2010'Light Vehicle CO2 emissions for Australia discussion paper,). To suggest this has nothing to do with their fuel taxes being at least 100% higher than ours would be absurd.

To give a simple calculation....." if the world slowly got here by the gases changing and permitting all life to excel, it gives reason that if we change the gases ratio....well you work it out.

Humans are changing the worlds gases.

There will be a slow price to pay for it, mark my words.

cactus

Should this post really be in the under economics? It's fairly basic economics that increasing the price of something decreases demand.