I agree that the carbon tariff must be on the table. A couple of problems though. Firstly few countries outside Scandinavia have the moral authority to impose such a tariff as they have yet to clean up their own act. Secondly it could be an administrative nightmare. For example steel wire from China might clearly have embodied CO2 but this is less clear for call centre services from India. I suggest an across the board punitive tariff of say 20% on top of landed costs. The tariff is removed when the exporting country meets benchmark carbon cuts.

Some people can't comprehend how we could penalise China and India when our per capita emissions are so much higher. However we don't have a population of over a billion people. Perhaps the middle class of both China and India is more like 0.3 billion each. If the rural poor are missing the benefits of industrialisation then middle class per capita emissions of each country may not be so different. Whether the 'bottom billion' in China and India have any chance of an air conditioned, frequent flying lifestyle is another issue. Possibly China and India could find the massive amounts of low carbon energy to help their poor. Australia's contribution may be to sell them gas and uranium rather than coal; all finite commodities however.

A carbon tariff would be an open invitation to retaliation.

Whilst I agree with the sentiments, the practicalities would be economic suicide.

Just a couple of points:
Firstly- You've singled out Australia since it is the world largest exporter of coal. This is true, however, we are NOT the world's largest producer! Infact globally we are very minor players. Australia produces just a trifling 6% of the world's coal. ie., We are nobodies in the greater scheme of things and anything we do will have neglible effect to convince the top two consumers China and the USA (who are also the top two producers) to cut coal production or to use clean coal technologies. Does the economist in you really think the UN will ever enforce trade restrictions on both China and the USA?
Secondly- Let's assume that average sea height does rise a couple of meters. Well, the sea rises and falls a few meters everyday and yet very few people ever drown. They don't drown because they get out of the way. It's the same with an increase in average sea height-- people will simple move themselves and their belongings out of the way-- and they've plenty of time to do it, decades indeed!. This may at first seem quite impossible at first but look at this like this- how many people in Australia are living in a builing that is over 100 years old? Very, very few! How many are living in a building over 50 years old, the vast majority don't! Infact the majority of people are living in buildings less than a few decades old. In otherwords, if it takes 40+ years for the sea to raise we will have plenty of time to build new buildings to relocate people into. Also, remember to keep this in perspective: a rise of a few meters only directly effects a few 10's of million people around the world compared to the billions that are currently alive-- indeed more people will die from completely preventable dieases (projected from the current rate of deaths) in the next fifty years than will lose their property to your alleged 2-3 meter raise in sea levels.
-- continued below...

-- continued from above...
Similar arguments apply in the case of losing productive farm land-- If the sea were to raise, the framers will simply move out of the way and farm somewhere else. The cycle time that the average farmer farms the same piece of land is way less than 50+ years. Infact, to give you an example let me tell you about dad: Over thirty years ago, he bought a working banana farm. After a few years he sold that and moved down the road to where what was a once dairy land and started a new farm. After farming it for twenty something years with various sorts of fruit now he is thinking about retiring, selling the farm. Chances are the new owners will not farm but will grow houses instead. The first farm he had is already no longer a banana farm but a rural house with acreage. The point of this is that all these changes happened within 30 years and had nothing to do with climate-change but were solely economic decisions. The traditional economic cycles have a vastly greater impact on farming and land useage change than sea level rises ever will.

PS: On the question of whether sea-levels will rise, personally, from what I've read it seems far from settled- a lot more research needs to be done. Ultimately, time will tell.

"Those countries which decline to take effective verifiable action to reduce their emissions should be compelled to do so and they can be."

Yeah, and there will be war if we, or anyone else, tries to do this.

On the upside (if you were grotesque enough to view it this way), such a war would kill off such a huge number of people that global GHG production would diminish significantly.

Mike, please, I was worried by your article and then saw you had worked for the most corrupt institution in the world "The Olympic Movement" mate second in that contest is the United Nations.
No one is going to do anything except try and load us up with some more taxes. No import duties but lots of huffing and puffing they are taking the michael out of you and your mates don't you know?
The world is still not going to end despite what you think.
The sea level is rising hey? Well how come we do not notice it? All the glaciers are melting, what! this has been going up and down for ever in fact 15,000 years ago the Northern Hemisphere was covered in ice due to an "Ice Age". Give this a google mate and have a bex and a lie down.
Ever thought of growing roses or gardening you will find it ultimately more rewarding.