Ted. It would seem that you have clear evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions pose a terribly serious threat to mankind. Otherwise, I can't believe that you would advocate a $200 per tonne CO2 tax.

You must think that anthropogenic CO2 is pretty much the only factor in observed climate change. You must see proof/evidence that natural cycles are not a factor. You must be able to provide proof/evidence that land-use factors are not a factor.

Surely, before we impose such an incredible burden on the population of Australia, we should at least explain why.

So. I am asking you. Can you show me the proof that anthropogenic CO2 is a major problem, and that natural cycles and land-use factors are insignificant.

Funny. Have asked this question before. Never any answers. About time, isn't it?

I'm with Herbert, and would add that the passage of time, and the behaviour of other governments around the world, suggest that the carbon tax was the wrong way to go. I know that it was part of the Gillard/Brown deal, but that just makes it worse.

The cooling phase that we seem to be in is very plain to me in Canberra this morning, with the coldest February morning for a long time. Yes, I know that it's just weather, not climate, but the world just isn't warming the way Hansen, IPCC et al said it was going to. Canada's pulled out of Kyoto, Obama isn't talking climate change any more, Europe is getting out of renewable subsidies...

When will you start to re-assess your conviction about AGW?

Herbert, the evidence is out there for climate change and its effects - you just have to read the literature. What is very evident is that we are heading for 4 degrees of warming which will be devastating for the planet. It means the end of Australian agriculture for starters. So clearly, $21 a tonne is not enough. The question is: is $200 even feasible without crashing the economy? I don't think it is, so in the short term we should aim for somewhere in between. I once heard that $76 a tonne was the minimum for wind energy to be taken up on a level playing field with coal. So that seems like a good figure to me. But given the irrational reaction by the Australian public to $23 a tonne, what hope is there for even $76 to be adopted, let alone $200?

Recently, Phil Jones of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, the organisation that provided and analysed the data for the International Panel on Climate Change, conceded that there has been no warming for the last 15 years. This suggests that 4 degrees of warming is at best an extremely remote possibility.

So what's the correct price for carbon dioxide? $0.00.

popnperish
Yes, lets look at the figures.. Go back and look at how much temperatures have increased over, say, the past 40 years or so in Australia (its available on the BoM website). Then try projecting that into the future, while allowing for an acceleration of the increase global warmers insist is there..

You won't be able to even get to 2 degrees by tne end of this century, let alone this 4 degrees you are talking about..

To get to 4 degrees you clearly need a major accleration on what we have seen to date.. not just a mild change but a major break.

You may still believe the models, but then you should ask youself what other countries are instituting the full-on carbon tax Australia intends to impose. Answer: virtually no-one. Activists keep on insisting that country or this country has a carbon tax, but if you check what they say, you'll find the tax doesn't exist or is nominal and incomplete..

Then you will begin to comprehend that Australia's carbon tax is a monumental policy blunder. Even if you really believe the 4 degree business it won't do anything..

We could have started at $10 so $23 is reasonable. I expect there will be minor belt tightening but not much else and even that will be dwarfed by the giveaways. Note that Garnaut, the Productivity Commission and the ACCC pointed that RECs currently worth about 4c per kwh are double dipping since coal and gas are handicapped by carbon tax. Perhaps the tax should be around $40 to get rid of renewables subsidies, which incidentally Spain now realises are unaffordable and Germany is beginning to grasp. I expect there will be more giveaways later in the year so even $23 is a façade.

Other distortions include the ban on nuclear power which could become economic all by itself as the gas price increases and China sucks up global coal supplies. A big unknown is the use of carbon offsets which will become a feature of the ETS. In theory Australia will spend billions on offsets if emissions are not on track by then. Trouble is they are not globally new carbon sinks so Mother Nature won’t care, if for example we pay the PNGians not to raze their forests. Maybe one day PNG will become a grown up country and will protect its own forests without needing bribes.

However I do favour a traded CO2 price as that price could reduce in tough times while at the same time guaranteeing emissions cuts. A far better regime I think would be an ETS with say 2% annual CO2 cuts, offsets disallowed, no renewables targets or feed-in tariffs/RECs and if somebody wants to build a nuclear power station let them.