Who cares about how complex it is.
Just think of the money we can make trading carbon credit derivatives !
The market will be ready to go on 1st July.

What else do you think this is all about ?

How do you expect them to be able to explain the measurement and
charging costs when they cannot answer the Bolt question ?

The Bolt question ? Oh yes,

"By how much will the temperature be lower if we reduce our CO2 by the expected amount ?"

"By how much will the temperature be lower if we reduce our CO2 by the expected amount ?"

- It will be lower in summer, but higher in winter, that's the kind of climate you get six feet under.

Rhrosty says: "I would like a referendum on just how we address Co2 emission? Let's assume we can all agree that the Co2 emission needs to be reduced"

You see Rhrosty. That is exactly the problem. There are little more than assumptions that CO2 is any kind of problem for the planet. Lets have some evidence/proof that rising anthropogenic CO2 emissions lead to potentially dangerous warming. And for your, acidification of the oceans. You know, don't you, that the science on these matters is highly controversial, and far from settled. You know, don't you, that the case for the feedbacks are likely neutral or even negative, meaning that CO2 is not really a problem.

I really wish that caring passionate people like you would devote your energies to the real problems facing the planet, of which there are many much more important to the environment than CO2.

Thank you for the comments so far. Keep them coming. Perhaps we can have some influence on the government. Wouldn’t it be good if we could embarrassing the government into doing the cost-benefit analyses of their policies properly before implementing them? It would be great if we could get the Treasury to estimate the real compliance cost of carbon pricing when it is implemented to the precison that will ultimately be required.

Taswegian, thank you for your several examples of the equivalence of the CO2 pricing to the “GST cake”. However, I’d like to focus for now on your first statement:

“For the carbon tax it appears the regulator has eyeballed the initial 400-500 liable entities. Presumably measurement of gross emissions is under control.”

I don’t agree that “measurements of the gross emissions is under control”. Australia has virtually no “measurement” of emissions. We have estimates only, and they are crude. For example, the emissions intensities figures used in the analyses of emissions from our power stations, which are our largest single source of emissions, are inaccurate and imprecise. They are nowhere near what the EU does to estimate emissions let alone what US EPA requires to measure emissions. Even the USA’s ‘measurements’ are nowhere near good enough for trade in a commodity.

Furthermore, the initial 400-500 entities (for Australia) are just the beginning. But what’s next? The government should have a proper estimate of what the cost of the final solution will be, and make it public, before we commit.

Will a partial solution – i.e. the 400-500 initial entities – be good enough for trade in a commodity (CO2 emissions and all the other ‘Kyoto gasses’)? Will it be acceptable to have some emitters included in the CO2 pricing scheme while others are not? Can such a situation last?

cont ...

.... continued from previous comment

Consider the fuss we make over whether or not we are being ripped off over petrol. Every decade or so we demand another investigation into petrol prices and whether or not we got what we’ve paid for. Won’t the same happen, eventually, with CO2 emissions? Won’t there be fraud if small emitters are not included in the scheme? Won’t there be all sorts of distortions imposed if large emitters are included and small emitters are excluded (e.g. entities adjusting their organisation to keep their emissions above or below the threshold)?

What ultimately will be the minimum parcel of tradeable commodity (CO2-eq emissions)? If we continually fuss about being ripped off by petrol prices and whether or not we got the amount we paid for, where the minimum traded volume is valued in cents, can we really expect that there will not be a trend, over time, to include smaller and smaller emitters?

The US Congress passed laws requiring the EPA to monitor emissions from all entities that emit more than 100/250 tons of CO2-eq per year http://www.eenews.net/assets/2011/09/16/document_pm_02.pdf#page=48 . At $30/tonne (the Australian Treasury projected CO2 price in 2020), the US law would require capture all sources emitting more that $3,000 or $7,500 per year.

Although the EPA has got around that for now, it clearly won’t last. Eventually the USA and everyone else involved in CO2 pricing will be forced to capture the CO2 tax or include in CO2 trading all entities that emit CO2. That is where we are inevitably headed.

If that is the level of precision we will need eventually, what will be the compliance cost in Australia?

This article is full of common sense. Would that the global warming alarmists had the same common sense.

Pictman