Ahh yes, Anthony Cox links to JoNova - your confirmation bias is strong today cohenite.

Here's another point of view where Cox's cognitive dissonance will out-out:

http://theconversation.edu.au/the-carbon-tax-insurance-against-climate-change-8244

Interesting points Rhosty but ultimately unrealistic. Look at Sweden, in the news lately due to Steffen's misrepresentations about Sewden's energy production; see:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/clean-up-energy-for-the-sake-of-our-grandchildren/story-e6frgd0x-1226432219509

Contrary to Steffen's piffle Sweden get's 7.5% of its power from waste:

http://catallaxyfiles.com/2012/07/23/sweden-for-example/

Why not more?

As for this statement:

"Given the efficiency factor of 60%, which when compared to coal-fired power, 20%, means the alternative is 2 3rds cheaper."

What you are talking about is capacity factor [CF] which is the % of power produced as a % of the maximum power if the installation was working 24/7.

Large scale coal fired power averages a CF of 87.5%, and Nuclear is the best averaging around 92.5% Worldwide, but in the US currently around 96%.

No other power source comes close to this and the renewables are so far behind as to be out of sight.

What needs to be done is to improve the efficiency of coal and invest in late generation nuclear and Thorium. Everything else is either unrealistic or small scale.

So there is a growing number who can see the lies of AGW.The CO2 Tax is going towards financing the UN and their Gobal Governance in which we will all be serfs subject to their laws and whims.Under Agenda 21,it has already begun.

The banks want the ETS and Malcolm Turnbull is a Goldman Sachs boy.This AGW is the biggest scam in all scientific history.Their lastest scare is about water" Last drink at the Oasis" done by the same people who did," Inconvenient truth" yet at the same time ignore coal seam gas destruction of farmland and underground water.

It has been a litany of lies and deception to bring in their "New World Order" in which a few elites will own everything and everyone.

It is already happening in Greece and Italy whereby bankers now run and control their countries.

bonmot, this is my comment on the nonsense article to which you provided a link;
"Insurance covers the insuree for risk.

There is no risk to cover, as it cannot be shown that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate.

There is no risk to be covered, and no money is retained to make any payout that might be necessary.

The reduction in emissions is said to ultimatel reduce temperature by .0038 degrees. This means that it has virtually no effect. Considering that rising CO2 for the past 15 years has had no effect, a cut in emissions will have no effect

Payments will be made from the tax as bribes to attempt to gain votes for the Labor Party. Judging by the polls, they are bribing only people who already vote for them.

Funds will also be paid to the unelected, unaccountable United Nations, which will distribute it to undeveloped countries, on the basis that they refrain from generating power to give them a civilized life.

This article is baseless, and attempts to excuse an inexcusable burden on the Australian community."

The Australian national Coalition's position on all this could be to undo the carbon tax and Legislate an Emissions Trading Scheme. ETS is not mentioned in the article of this thread.

In any case, Coalition leader Abbott has not replied to repeated request to discuss the situation that leads to a question that surely should be repeated until honestly and clearly answered, publicly.

Has AGW and Kyoto science measured and assessed photosynthesis-linked warmth in natural and sewage nutrient proliferated ocean algae?

I think algae can increase warmth in an ocean similar to how a small heater can increase warmth in a building. I also think there is more plant matter in the ocean than on land.

Over 50% of world oxygen comes from the ocean.

Surface temperature of ocean water dominates influence on weather.

Algae is abundant en masse in ocean where ice in reported melting more than usual. See:
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/june/arctic-algal-blooms-060712.html

AGW science can not be settled at least until all likely sources of anthropogenic warmth are measured and assessed.

I think a majority of scientists agree AGW is a problem but disagree CO2 is the cause. Being skeptical about CO2 is one thing, being skeptical about AGW is another thing.

I wonder if Coalition leader Abbot is prepared to shows his hand now and admit whether a government led by him, will or will not legislate an ETS?

Or can Mr Abbott or anyone show evidence ocean algae is not linked to AGW?

Flat earthers of the world, give up.
It is not a debate any more only a plaintive "but I don't want the way I live, to change".