This has echoes of whether there should be GST on a cake. Carbon penalties should apply first to what can be clearly measured such as coal going into a boiler. What can't be measured such as cow farts or tree weight gain should be deferred. Though I doubt this will happen I think each country should be assessed as carbon compliant or non-compliant. Goods moving from a greenhouse rogue country like China should be levied with an arbitrary carbon tariff, say 20%. This is patently unfair in terms of carbon intensity because it is the same for steel ingots and bath towels. The idea would be to force China (and India) to do enough to get the tariff removed. Of course the 'compliant' countries would have to get their house in order asap so that cuts out Australia.

We already have a carbon tax...it's called income tax

I am extremely doubtful that the mechanical infrastructure costs of renewable energy plants is any greater than the non renewables, factoring in royalties, extraction costs, transport costs, etc.
The only reason coal and oil are so cheap is because the total real cost of using these resources is never factored in.
These costs include not only pollution and environmental impact, but the fact that these resources simply will not be available to future generations.
How much will a lump of coal be worth in 100 years, compared to a puff of wind?
And how would we feel if our ancestors had used up the whole world's supply of phosphate or topsoil?

No tax is going to make the slightest bit of different to natural climate change. The whole thing is a con to give more control and income to governments.

I vote for a carbon tax on individuals. Fuel hungry cars, oversized houses. They all add up to abuse of fossil fuels. The atmosphere needs cleaning up no matter what the concerns.

Desmond says I vote for a carbon tax on individuals. Fuel hungry cars, oversized houses. They all add up to abuse of fossil fuels. The atmosphere needs cleaning up no matter what the concerns.

You missed out - high tax on every child born in/after 2010 and every immigrant (refuge).
We are overpopulated even in Australia where we are a net importer of food will we have the oil to import in the future?

I've always liked the idea of a carbon tax. If we have to pay for the carbon cost of shipping goods that we could easily make ourselves, our manufacturing sector will revive and we will become much more self reliant as a nation. We may also learn to buy less, throw out less and insist on manufactured goods being repairable and durable, as they used to be. There is tremendous irony in our profligate, consume-til-you-kill-the-planet ways in the face of inevitable shortages, when compared to the thrift of our forebears in the face of plenty. The culprits? Entities such as the godforsaken Productivity Commission, even organisations such as the Australian Consumers Association, which see lower prices as the ultimate goal. If only the major political parties weren't the puppets of big business and big polluters we might see sensible measures such as a carbon tax.

If you want to get a handle on the carbon cost of shipping goods between countries, ponder this: container ships use heavy petroleum sludge as their fuel except when they are entering and leaving port. This sludge spews out the equivalent of 350,000 cars per ship per day.

Gas is never mentioned much in the emissions debate. Why not transition to gas for domestic housing and small scale industry. Gas may not be able to provide 100% energy needs in the home but for the heaviest user - hot water - gas is cleaner.

Match this with renewable energy sources - geothermal, solarthermal, wind etc should go some way to reducing emissions.

ETS will not do much to actually reduce emissions and acts only to shift money around.

There still may be the need for some coal generated electricity but emissions would be greatly reduced.

You said it all in the first line. Our emmisions are tiny. Why do you think the previous government refussed to sign up.

Now if we reduce our emmissions by 30%, that's only .0003 of the worlds emmissions.

Meanwhile, the countries that havn't signed up will have a field day with their unfair advantage in the world's market place.

I tend to agree that it's just another 'money grabbing' exercise.

A carbon tax is just another excuse for big government to involve itself in redirecting what would have previously been your personal discretionary income choices.

The idea that government, equipped with its legions of public service “jobs-for-life” morons, will find better solutions to “individual discretion” is a complete farce in the making.

Ultimately a carbon tax remains as I have often said

“Socialism by Stealth”

I am just surprised so many dummies are signing up for it, instead of resisting it.

Desmond “I vote for a carbon tax on individuals. Fuel hungry cars, oversized houses. They all add up to abuse of fossil fuels. The atmosphere needs cleaning up no matter what the concerns.”

Individuals = income tax
Fuel hungry cars = fuel excise tax
Oversized houses = council rates and stamp duty and land tax

In UK when they cleaned up Londons "Pea Soup Fog" they did it by banning coal fires and it did not need any taxation to do that ...

So we have taxes which suit your suggestions already..

carbon tax is just a new opportunity to rob you of your personal discretionary choices.

Effective environment solutions are what work and they do not need "Taxes" to get them implemented, just some "thinking politicians" and "thinking bureaucrats".

However such thinking would result in just more oxymorons.

I just spent some time with someone senior from the Dept of Climate Change at a conference.

We have no idea out here in the ordinary world of just how pervasive and all encompassing this is going to be. There will be a huge force of people who can enter every workplace to audit everything and interview people to discover the full extent of "Carbon Pollution" so they can levy charges. (rub hands together and snigger here AGW types, it's all going to plan!)

There will be infrastructure to fine, prosecute and investigate the community. Jobs are being created for investigators and "Secret Police", you might consider being an informer, oh silly me, of course you will be. The ALP do have a mandate to do this don't they? (52% of the vote)

The person I was with was dismissive of the business community and said they "knew" they were going to be "difficult" and so the DOCC was tooling up to deal with "the bastards". Great, there will immediately be adversarial action once this goes through, and they will have the right to enter any workplace and interview anyone. Anyone who says differently to anyone else what they think the carbon output is of that business is subject to investigation and prosecution. All interviews will be recorded and can and will be used in prosecutions as well as for historical tracking as will seized documents.

I know ALP voters and AGW types are happy about this, you've finally got your precious government going into action with a police state. (yay, at last they cry, all the AGW clubs can become informer cells!)

This has less to do with reducing pollution than it has with control and raising taxes, they are soooo looking forward to getting out there and getting the boot into those nasty employers and industries.

The rest of you will be monitored, they will have the right to monitor homes as well as businesses, you'll be begging for the Australia Card after this comes into play.

Class war anyone?

I am totally in favour of an AU card. With every conceivable statistic on it.
I have nothing to hide from anybody. I would like someone to give me an example of something that is so sacred that they cannot share.

People that make a mess should clean it up.
Pollution is another form of graffiti.
My car runs on gas, thats the best i can do at the moment.
I have 6 solar panels on the roof which is supplying 30% of my power.
Solar h/w with gas back up.
Unless you clean up your own act, you can't stand over anybody else

Juel Briggs Bring nothing new to solving the problems of carbon emissions and the depletion of resources, I can’t understand why on line opinion would use such rubbish. All he’s concerned with is maintaining the economic system that doesn’t work and is the disease that’s creating global warming. Juel Briggs needs to use some imagination and try to get some understanding of the serious environmental dilemma that system has place us in.

This is so so funny

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5907383/Global-cooling-hits-Al-Gores-home.html

"This is so so funny."

Yes indeed it's hilarious Runner particularly when Booker, a scientific illiterate presents himself as a climate expert to create confusion. In fact he's a gutter journo who peddles misinformation on many issues - not least about one of the world's most eminent astrophysicists.

Well done Runner in spotting the fraud!

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/now/

http://richardwilsonauthor.wordpress.com/tag/christopher-booker

Protagoras

It is obvious that you are one of the 'science is settled' people. Unfortunately few if any facts support you.

The argument that the world's biggest coal exporter is a minor player in climate change is clearly false and it's not clear whether a tax on energy would apply to export customers and be a tax high enough to cause a real shift in the economics of clean energy. I'd like to think so but doubt it.
We mine and sell coal on a scale that puts us right up there with the big boys and are currently massively expanding our export capability. Rudd has fully backed clean coal technology which is code for ongoing, unrestricted mining, export and use of coal. Turnball wants Australian interests and jobs put first which is code for ongoing, unrestricted mining, export and use of coal.

There's a growing acceptance of the new climate reality but not much sense of seriousness and urgency. We'll have to see a changing of the guard throughout politics and business to see more than greenwash.

Runner

It’s rather sad that poor old Booker (DOB: 1937) not only claims to be an “expert” on climate change but contradicts the science on asbestos, swine flu and a myriad of other issues. Now he’s written an article titled: “Charles Darwin zealots have made science a religion.”

Typical of Booker, he fails again to provide anything scientific when contradicting Darwin’s theories – just more gutter journalism attracting howls of ridicule:

1: “Thank you for this article Mr Booker, as it illuminates clearly your level of ignorance on scientific matters. Whilst you may still be able to write articles on the perils of socialism with some gravitas, your credibility with respect to the sciences, is now completely shot.”

2: “Mr Booker, if you or any other creationists want to put forward a competing theory, then you need to do the experiments, write the papers, and have them published like anyone else. You CANNOT get to God simply by "discrediting" someone else's theory, especially not by re-presenting arguments that were blown out of the water when Queen Victoria was still moaning about her dead husband.”

Unfortunately Runner, "few if any facts support you" and defending Booker, the "Patron Saint of Charlatans" reveals that your moralistic tirades are extremely selective and indeed, questionable.......?

.

Ken Fabos,

If the export of coal is the prosecutions exhibit A.
Why is it that of the worlds biggest EXPORTERS in 2007 :
--Australia
--Indonesia
--South Africa
---Columbia
--USA
-- China
http://www.coalportal.com/production_trade_data.cfm?data_type=Export
Only two had been , targeted & bound, by the Kyoto protocol.

Now, lets look at CONSUMPTION ( mindful as I am, that it's consumption that is regular used to indict the West for crimes against humanity)
--China
--USA
---India
--Russia
--Germany
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb1115.html
Again –THE SAME ENIGMA– some of the biggest ‘polluters‘ were not even called in for questioning by the (Kyoto)prosecution.

Now, why do you suppose that is so?

Horus, I see nothing particularly strange that, at the first attempt to face this issue the world's technological leaders should be asked to provide a lead for others to follow. Kyoto was back when acceptance of climate change was predominately confined to scientists and Greens and mainstream politics was doing it's best to convince everyone it was therefore a conspiracy of scientists and greens.
I note that Australia's response to the greatest challenge of our times was and still is unequivocal support for 'clean coal' technology which is code for full support for the ongoing mining, export and use of coal, since 'clean coal' can't ever be a cost effective, low emissions alternative to dirty coal. I also note that Australia and the USA have appeared to keen to do less than the least that their trading partners are willing or able to do than face this challenge head on. The idea that the world's technological leaders might lead the way does look a bit naïve but not as naïve as thinking that closing our eyes, blocking our ears and pretending the problem will go away by itself is the way to ensure the good life we enjoy will be sustainable into the future.

Ken,
It has the smell of politicking for short term advantage.

From the “FIRST”, it should have been presented as a world responsibility.

Too much of Green & allied campaigning was about co-opting Aust & the USA into signing Kyoto .And, to that end, much went into selling the idea that it -all- about the developed world.

Which is probably why, in the SECOND phase, it is proving hard to sell the story that there are other responsible countries– everyone has a part to play.

Incidentally, re clean coal technology , there is interesting argument being run by some in the AGW movement ( post Kyoto, and post those villains Bush & Howard, who had similar aspirations--but were widely ridiculed for it!) –that we cannot expect the developing to stop using coal –rather, we should develop clean coal technology, to pass on to them!

Horus, 'clean coal' requires 3 times as much CO2 to be dealt with than coal burned to make it. Gigatons. It can't be just shovelled into trucks and dumped into a hole in the ground,covered and forgotten. It can't be low cost and will quickly use up the easy to get to geological formations that suit long term sequestration. In the meantime the wishful thinking that it can be a solution feeds the expansion of the use of coal, increases global emissions and diverts resources needed to develop genuine alternatives. The deep drilling technology it would need could, for example, be used to develop hot rock geothermal - perhaps the cleanest alternative of all.
Much as people like to lay blame for the inadequacies of national and international efforts like Kyoto to environmentalists, the reality is the failures are entirely failures of mainstream politics to take climate change seriously.

Hi Horus,

Even if all the technologists, engineers and geologists can make it commercial – I’m sure our coal customers will not be interested in buying “clean-coal" technology (Carbon Capture and Storage - CCS). It’s not just like getting “fries with your burger”, but involves big, big money to build and run. In fact, CCS will increase power generating costs from about $35c per MWh to around $100 per MWh (from the UMPNER report – see page 19, http://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/shadomx/apps/fms/fmsdownload.cfm?file_uuid=43265FF4-B73A-A288-28B0-2940937BFC8E&siteName=ieaust. – this graph’s top end price and beyond is now appearing to be the best estimate of CCS costs). A similar but slightly higher price ($135/MWh) is obtained if you use the recently published carbon price required to make CCS competitive, ie $100/tonne (Science Journal).

A tripling or possibly quadrupling of power generation costs? I don't think so, nuclear and wind power are cheaper than that - so why would any country like Japan, Korea, Taiwan, India and China (our main coal customers) invest in Carbon Capture and Storage? “Clean coal” is a politician’s pipe-dream where they are investing billions of our heard earned money in R&D, pilot- and demonstration-plants so they can fool us into thinking they are "doing something". More Scare, Fear, Spin, Tax and Spend, top-down driven symbolism, without any real consequences, except that we will all be a lot poorer.