Andrew Leigh said "Australia's now-defunct emissions trading scheme"

We never had a carbon trading scheme, only a carbon tax.

Andrew also forgot to include all those that lost their jobs because of all the industries that closed to give them the emissions savings.

Andrew, you have short changed Maurice Newman. He calls the climate change assertion a fraud. Hoax is too benign a description of a fraud like anthropogenic climate change. You are a persistent fraud supporter, Andrew, ignoring the science which shows that human emissions have such a trivial effect that it is not measurable, so is not be scientifically noticed.
The assertions in your article are dishonest, as is any support for the fraud of AGW.

Taking a broad view, I think it is unfortunate that the potential of AGW has not been seen more clearly as a prime 'opportunity' to innovate in the very, very-long-term global interest.

Certainly 'Climate' is complex; and perhaps many resources have been misdirected, or potentially wasted, in attempts to isolate a magical formula by which to predict or preempt climate manifestations.
Time to bail, or to take a punt on the economic, environmental, human and biosphere potentials?

In a quite separate set of articles on this forum, Don Aitkin addresses the question "How can we usefully make judgements about science?"
On economic or 'scientific' potentials, Don appears to favour the study of 'gravitational waves' as potentially more productive (or at least interesting) than the study (or consideration) of global 'climate'.
Such 'waves', 'string theory', and the 'tricky movement' of electrons may explain microchips, space-time, or 'The Law of Everything', but I'm not sure how they will address the elimination of poverty or disease or conflict, let alone the feeding of the seething masses in the next millennium.

Andrew Leigh has identified practical benefits arising from the carbon tax, and appears to favour an ETS. I do not support the latter - paying someone else to cover our butt; and I see the fault of the carbon tax scheme (and possibly the RET) being in not preventing emitters from simply passing the cost on to consumers.

In the broad, oil and gas are finite, land and fertilisers are finite, and biodiversity is arguably 'on the brink'.
Continuing growth will eventually require multi-layer, solar and optic-fibre-supported mass hydroponics, and probably nuclear power, and most certainly total 'recycling' of garbage and of human, animal and agricultural waste.
When to act? When the last barrel of oil or megalitre of gas is harvested? Or, while the 'opportunity' is still within easy grasp?