Part of what is wrong with ETS is that it set out to be a comprehensive system that would try and do something about all emissions. The problem here is that some emissions are a lot harder and/or more costly to fix than others. Because of this, at any given "price on carbon" there will be many emissions for which it will make more commercial sense to accept the price increase and do nothing about the emissions. To try and reduce the damage done by these unproductive price increases the government has effectively excluded many emissions from the scheme by the use of compensation, free credits etc. In effect, CPRS is an "exclude by exception" system.
However, it may make more sense to take the opposite approach and "include by exception". This means focusing on a very limited number of emissions at any one time and only adding extra action if it will reduce the average cost per tonne of reduction.

examinator

I share your concerns about carbon offsetting and for all the same reasons. As you've pointed out, it just allows the big carbon emitters to continue on polluting as usual. It does nothing to encourage them to change their ways and lower their emissions. The European experience is already revealing many problems for the poorer nations doing the offsetting, especially for the locals directly affected.

Another problem with the ETS is the number of free permits that have been handed out. Again, it's business as usual for all these big winners, with little incentive to encourage them to switch to new energy sources.

I originally went along with Rudd's proposal, even though the targets were pitifully inadequate, thinking that any scheme was better than none. But I've since changed my mind and decided that we really do need to start again.

Because this scheme would lock us into low targets, when they were increased further down the track which they would obviously have to be, those companies affected by the changes would then be entitled to compensation. So, not only would our taxes have funded all these free permits in the first place, but we'd also be up for huge payouts as the targets were increased.

So, frustrating as it is, with all the time wasted already, and all the opportunites lost, particularly with Howard's ten years of denial, I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that this scheme is so badly flawed that proceeding with it would be next to useless.

I think a carbon tax would more likely facilitate the switch to new energy sources we so urgently need. The money raised could then be fed into developing renewable energy sources, improving public transport, setting up feed-in solar tarriffs, fostering sustainable industries and green jobs and subsiding household energy efficiencies.

The one good that could emerge from the likely implosion of the Opposition is a massive shift of support to the Greens, who really are the true opposition when it comes to climate change. They're the ones who've been keeping abreast of this debate for decades now.

Ludwig,

It seems to clear to everyone involved that the issue is about control Power of the Liberal party. I've clearly made my point on other topics.

In my experience/opinion politicians real motives are rarely as they state.

the ETS is arguably not the primary objective here it is merely the rallying point (excuse).

There maybe a few who are voting on that as a principal but I'll bet that isn't so with the main protagonists, Minchin,Robb and co.

This is not about the politics, it's about looking at the ETS as an method to reduce AGW, pollution etc.

Hasbeen,
The existence of AGW in not under question here, it's trying to have a discussion of what are the flaws IN the ETS as a solution, NOT SHOULD WE HAVE ONE.

I do wish, you and others would read the QUOTE I posted. Then read the whole article and follow them up before posting. YOU ARE ANSWERING THE WRONG QUESTION. You are simply expressing your prejudice again.

Spindoc,
I wish you would read the quote, and then the web site posted. Then you would understand the question I'm asking.
I'm assuming that sooner or later we are going to get one, simply look at what the US, Europe and the Chinese are doing.

As a previous poster put it, we haven't had a good public discussion about the merits of a ETS, as opposed to a carbon tax etc. We have allowed our politicians, IMO, to be swayed by Big polluters, to go the route that is best for their short term bottom line, not necessarily for us in the long run.

It strikes me as common sense to understand that if, as it seems, AGW is real, and that we have some input in what is going to be enacted on our behalf. It makes no sense, putting all our eggs into the "no we don't believe in AGW basket". We are doing our selves a disservice by not understanding all the options needed or not.

By the end of 2010 the ETS will be nearly a world wide thing.
By the last sitting of this senate it will be law in Australia.
In months we will see Liberals, well most of them, ask was it worth destroying the party?
I answer for them now, no!
Greens? Bronwyn sure you understand?
Even now their radicalism is extreme, and wasteful.
Remember they want a scheme that is truly Nation destroying.
Look closely at what they ask for.
NEVER let them of the hook, they have a scheme on the wish list that if implemented would kill our economy.
And if EVER a vote for them is a wasted one it is now, Hockey may well marginals them by passing back log of bills in the upper house, he has to be smart enough to know his interests lay in highlighting the extremes of greens.
ETS? never mind time and the written word hold OLO climate change skeptics accountable forever

How the BBC funds climate change ‘revolutionaries’

At least Futerra can take comfort from the fact that its clients, the BBC, have done their best to play down Climategate

http://www.prisonplanet.com/how-the-bbc-funds-climate-change-revolutionaries.html

Attention Lawyers! Make Millions Off Of Climategate Crooks!
http://www.prisonplanet.com/attention-lawyers-make-millions-off-of-climategate-crooks.html

“There’s gold in them thar hills!” Lawyers need to get off their butts, and realize what a financial bonanza the Climategate criminal scam represents. The possibilities for financial remuneration are mind boggling.

Search Engines Censoring ClimateGate?
http://www.prisonplanet.com/search-engines-censoring-climategate.html

A fantastic article written by Christopher Brooker of the London Telegraph exposing the climate change fraud rocketed to the very top of a Google News search for “global warming,” only to disappear hours later.

David Archibald on Climategate
http://www.prisonplanet.com/david-archibald-on-climategate.html

The only thing that the Climategate emails tell us about the peer review process is that it was used as a gate-keeping exercise to keep sceptical papers out of the system.

Operation: Arrest the Crimatologists
http://www.prisonplanet.com/operation-arrest-the-crimatologists.html

The millions of people who are following the twists and turns of the unfolding climategate scandal online are increasingly asking themselves the same question: if a scientific theory falls in the forest and there’s no reporter willing to cover it, does it make a sound?
http://www.prisonplanet.com/climategate-scandal-demonstrates-intellectual-protectionism-of-modern-scientists.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/global-warming-hoax.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/who-funds-the-warmists.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/climate-change-data-dumped.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/the-medieval-warm-period-%e2%80%93-a-global-phenomenon-unprecedented-warming-or-unprecedented-data-manipulation.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/vincent-gray-on-climategate-%e2%80%98there-was-proof-of-fraud-all-along%e2%80%99.html

Examiner;
The ETS is in detail an unknown to many of us.
A simple tax would have much more appeal to the general public.
The credit system has a reputation of failure and not be effective in
reducing CO2 emissions.
The credits have a smell of the church's Indulgences of the middle ages.
Martin Luther, where are you ?
The Russians cleaned up at the expense of the Europeans.
The financial people are already to go with their futures trading in
CO2 credits and derivitaves. Does all this ring any bells ?

Then on top of it all we have the so called *Climategate*