Anthony is quite right to say that market-based carbon schemes have basically proved a waste of time. The require far more politcal will than most governments are willing to give to them, and have proved highly unstable in practice.

I will take issue on two points, however:
1) Anthony I thought the Californian scheme was going ahead. I seem to recall reading that permits for it were being auctioned this month. I am prepared to be corrected. It is, of course, the only scheme even remotely comparable to the Australian carbon tax.

2) I don't really agree that the EU carbon price is dictated by Brussells. Gorvernment issuing of free permits and reduced emissions due to the crisis means that prices have been heading down for some time. This is not expected to change. But I think Brussells would like to see a higher carbon price.

Tying ourselves in any economic way to the failed EU is patently a major mistake? The European carbon trading scheme is a Clayton's scheme, or the carbon trading scheme you have when you're not having a carbon trading scheme.
If anyone understands how this scheme will reduce emission or actually do more than simply line the pockets of carbon broking business barons; and or, create an even bigger bureaucracy; then, in the now famous words of Pauline Hanson, "please explain"?
If we have to put a price on carbon then let it remain a simple tax or better yet, integral to long overdue tax reform and quite massive simplification!
Combet clearly has always wanted an ETS? He, in my view, has been seduced by the investment billions waiting in the wings; and or, his post politics prospects?
When he addresses this subject, he invariably licks dry lips and or, heads for the glass of water?
Linking us to the EU scheme has turned what should have been a very straightforward and transparent tax, into a dogs breakfast of a scheme; or vastly increased complexity?
A very wise man once remarked, "that at some point, complexity always becomes fraud"
Fortunately, this fatuous foible, has added to the surety that Labour, will be bundled out of office at the next federal election?
And maybe just maybe, Abbott has the testicular fortitude to follow through, with his threatened double dissolution, that loosens the tail wagging the dog, minor parties' hold on the reins of power!
And then having control in both houses, reintroducing a re-badged work choices, so he also can follow Howard into political obscurity?
Let's hope that there's intelligent life somewhere in the universe, cause there seems to be bugger all down here on planet earth, or in any of her parliaments?
Rhrosty.

Curmudgeon; the California law case involving a challenge to their cap and trade, ETS, legislation is, as far as I can tell, unresolved, and so represents an ongoing obstacle to carbon trading in that state. I am willing to look at contrary evidence about that. The last I saw, in any event, the cap and trade scheme will have 90% of its issued credits for free in the first few years of the scheme's operation:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/us-state-of-california-adopts-an-emissions-trading-scheme/story-e6frg6so-1226172986886

I don't know about you but if a government scheme based on a tax equivalent has that tax set at zero then that is not a tax and, in the case of the Californian scheme, not an ETS.

As to Brussells not being in the driver's seat for price setting of the EU carbon trading scheme, I would respectfully disagree on the basis that Brussells sets the number of carbon credits via NAP and, as the link shows, can by doing so have a major impact on the price for a carbon credit up or down. I mean they've admitted that they want to control the price of the trading, so unless they are liars I don't see how any other conclusion can be reached.

More generally I think it is beyond doubt that when carbon trading is exposed to a market it collapses. People are not completely stupid!

Curmudgeon, I beg your pardon; I have done some more research and found that while the challenge by Green groups to California's cap and trade/ETS scheme is still on foot the court would not allow a stay on the scheme while the legal challenge continued.

I still maintain the points about the Clayton's nature of the California scheme and that the EU scheme is not a market based one.

Good article, well said. Carbon Taxes were originally designed to be income streams for the UN, EU, Carbon Exchanges, alternative energy companies and various other hangers on without the interference of the market. It is basically a tax to fund green activism in the UN and EU and deprive the West of some of its economic prosperity while benefitting some wealthy elite in the process (Al Gore etc). The environmental benefit is nowhere to be seen and was simply the vehicle to introduce such a Tax.

Taking the scheme out of the marketplace is an acknowledgement that trading in CO2 is worth virtually zilch in reality. Our money and so many hands in the till waiting for their share of it. A shameful exercise but a warning to the population of how organisations such as the UN are populated by a coalition of self serving bureaucrats and green activists who have formed a toxic but influential mix, sufficient to bend Governments to their will.

Cohenite

All fair enough although we must disagree on Brussells (like saying "we'll always have Paris") I don't doubt what you say on the substance of the California scheme, which I had not looked at properly.. what a waste of time.. okay, tnks for that..