No, the best solution is to admit that the whole scam has now unravelled and round up Jones,Briffa,the rest of the Hadley Centre gang and Michael Mann, et al for very thorough interrogation.

Even Tim "all the dams will run dry" Flannery is now admitting the evidence doesn't stack up - and on that basis we're going to destroy the economy?

Puh-lease.

Stephen Jones has not provided any biographical information or back ground for his proposal. I can only assume that his inspiration was induced with some recreational herbs.

His proposal has the teensiest flaw in that it assumes that all the citizens of earth have equal rights over the planet's resources.

Australia with 1.5% of the world's emmissions and 0.3% of the worlds population would need to reduce emmissions by 80% just to reach the average.

A cut of 20% by 2020 would still require a chunk of cash to be paid to despots such as Mugabe etc.

So while your socialist nirvana is full of happy people and frollicking animals it bears no resemblence to reality.

Again, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It supports all life on earth and enriches plant growth.
Why is it that seemingly well educated people are taken in by the IPCC garbage.
Have you not heard of the Hadley Climate Research Unit and their blatant manipulations?
Yes, the University of Essex is and was a hot bed of Marxism and they will not be content until we are all poverty stricken.
Stop wasting time and energy on CO2. It isn't a problem. Garner your resources to find out what is causing the climate to change. It goes up and it goes down. Why?

I watched a documentary on BBC TV over the weekend, called "Hot Cities".

This episode was about the city of Dakar in Senegal. They breed
like rabbits in Senegal, so more and more people are the real problem.

They interviewed a bloke who had 2 wives and 8 children. He was
battling to feed them all as a farmer, as ever more people have
been cutting down ever more trees, so there is less rainfall.

Given that I haven't created 8 children, all cutting down trees
and overloading the planet even more, how is the author going to
allow for this? Do I get a credit? Do people who have too many
children pay extra tax?

The author seemingly is intent on paying countries who have even
more children, wanted or unwanted, even more money!

That hardly sounds like common sense to me.

Stephen, you have just posted a “Lead Balloon”. Must try harder.

Yabby makes a good point. Stephen Jones' proposal lets a country gain a larger share of a resource, the Earth's capacity to safely deal with wastes, by simply having lots and lots of babies. A really fair method might be to work out a country's emissions entitlement from the share of global population that the country could sustainably support at a reference standard of living.

I would´ve thought that by now we´d have moved beyond both climate-change denial and blaming anything vaguely outside of the economic orthodoxy ´socialist´...
I´m not entirely convinced of the merits of this scheme (given that redistributing the cash to countries in proportion to their population doesn´t address the underlying structures that reinforce the dependence and 'underdevelopment' of some countries), but I´m sure that there could be different types of regulation to prevent policies which encouraged the population to 'breed like rabbits' as it was so eloquently put. Senegal would probably not become the new superpower of the world, despite what the BBC says.
The people who are replying to this article (and other articles on this site) seem to be looking for a fight rather than contributing constructively to a crucial debate.

Reply to comments.

Firstly, the article is about designing a means of putting a price on greenhouse gas emissions that is fair, effective and does not harm the poor. It is not about the reality or otherwise of global warming – that debate is taken up in many other places. It does, however, address the consequence frequently raised by leading doubters of dangerous, anthropogenic, climate change, namely that an unnecessary increase in the price of energy would disproportionately hurt the poor.

Secondly, an approach that is based on creating property rights and user pays is simply not socialist. If anything it has an ancestry going back to the right wing approach of solving the “tragedy of the commons” by privatisation. In this case, however, the result is the creation of an ownership right and payments for the poor rather than dispossession.

Thirdly, regarding Robert Mugabe and other tyrants. The possibility of withholding rent payments creates another lever that the international community can use to enforce civilised norms of behaviour.

Fourthly, 7t CO2 per capita per annum is not a figure plucked from the air. It is the current average annual per capita greenhouse gas emission level. The claim that Australia would need to reduce its emissions by 80% is misconstrued as a GCR would charge individuals according to what they consume, not countries according to what they produce. Australia could in fact increase its emissions, but each Australian would have to decrease the emissions embodied in their consumption and the world overall would have to decrease its emissions. The bottom line is that alternative sources of energy are needed. Putting a price on CO2 emissions provides an incentive to find them.

Fifthly, a GCR that increases ownership share as population increases would indeed provide a perverse, though probably weak, incentive to population growth. This is easily dealt with by fixing ownership share according to population at a given date. A better approach is to adjust for migration but not for intrinsic growth. These and other important but second order issues are dealt with in my longer article at www.infovironment.com .

SRJ,

Rubbish:

Firstly: putting a price on green house emmissions has nothing to do with re distribution of the income,

Secondly (and fourthy): User pays is not socialist, but dishing out the income based purely on head count is. It also transfers money from the poor in the rich countries to the rich in the poor countries.

Thirdly: If these are property rights, one would be obliged to pay, and also, withholding payments has never worked before.

Finally, the carbon tax is unpopular enough as it is, but the inflationary effects on the lowest income group is mitigated by using the taxes to mitigate this. Handing this cash over to tin pot dictators would make any politician as popular as a pork chop in Palestine.

What a lot of hot air is Kyoto, and the carbon tax.
The simple fact is that the carbon taxation or levy is not only a load of cobbler it’s untruthful.
Who has the best footprint China or Australia?
I would argue Australia has far better pollution control.
Why because there are simply 20 million of us compare do the 1. 6 or is it 8 billion Chinese. I.e. the pro rata emission footprint is equating output to a merely a statistical based table of comparison.
China therefore outputs a billion times more pollutants than Australia.
Next the figures we have to prove this are whose.
Chinas of course, and no doubt they are above manipulating figures aren’t they.
Next what has Kyoto achieved apart from getting some very highly paid grave trainer on the pay roll?
It’s like the united nations of gravy training,
This rubbish has to stop in favor of real policy actually doing something

As Yabby rightly points out something which Ludwig has been on about for a long time and humbly something I have commented on too

“Given that I haven't created 8 children, all cutting down trees
and overloading the planet even more, how is the author going to
allow for this? Do I get a credit? Do people who have too many
children pay extra tax?”

If we are expected to act “globally” we must act equally. The notion that the developed economies are to blame could be applied

If, back 200 years ago or so, if the countries of the industrial revolution had not sent missionaries and then doctors and then medicines to sort out malaria, diphtheria, leprosy and plague to places like Senegal, 6 of that blokes 8 children would have died from some disease or another.

So maybe the right thing to do is to withdraw aid and welfare payments and leave underdeveloped countries to fend for themselves. Let child mortality take care of the population explosion, in the way it used to do 300 years ago.

And I see Brazil wants to be paid for not chopping down the Amazon

What this article is all about is some global system of “Dane geld” where the developed nations pay the underdeveloped nations to live in peace.

So to payments for peaceful existence, as dearest Margaret said

"Bribing regimes to comply with requirements which they should have acknowledged in the first place is not a process that appeals to me."