"Our tax system is already among the most complex in the world - I see no point in making it worse. "

Well economists do. There is definitely a point - it is the cheapest way to reduce emissions.

"Taxes to try to curb alcohol and tobacco use have had little effect - enough people see them as a necessity. "

That's because they are drugs. The high taxes can be justified because it is a good way to raise revenue, even if they don't reduce consumption. C02 emissions are not a drug.

"It is the same with fuel "

Says who? Not the economists, that's for sure.

"Soft-skinned city-slickers would have a hell of a time doing without their airconditioned homes and offices, and will pay more to keep these running,"

Air conditioning is not the same thign as greenhouse emissions. If taxed enough, those air conditions will be power by renewables.

"This is what I mean about these things being a necessity. "

So, they won't go down. Plenty of other sources of carbon emissions will go down.

"My suggestion is to limit the actual supply to each house over a month or quarter. "

You think that would be less complicated? It would harm the economy far more than a taxation scheme, for a given emissions reduction.

"However the practical realities are that many people DO see these as essential"

Sure, but they don't see greenhouse emissions as essential. There are plenty of ways to supply those things without emissions, or with far fewer.

The fact is, the connections between goods, services and emissions is very complex. Taxation is the simplest and most effective way to respond.

"Air conditioning is not the same thign as greenhouse emissions. If taxed enough, those air conditions will be power by renewables."

Freediver, I disagree. As it stands there is not enough capacity to use renewables to supply our demand. Yes, over time there might be, but we need to focus on reducing our usage full-stop. There is great opposition to wind-farms in many areas where they are viable (esperance is an exception to this, as someone has pointed out), solar is not currently effective (uses more energy to produce then it captures in a lifetime), and the greens prefer carbon emmissions over flooding valleys for hydro power (I'll concede that the water crises would cause problems for this at the moment anyway). Renewables should be supported, I have no problem with that. I do think though that a subsidy program is more effective and more flexible than a tax system. But until renewables are developed to the stage that they can supply sufficient energy for our needs, then we need to focus on reducing the need. That's where restrictions come into play. It can be self-monitored, with financial penalty for over-use, although you will have more of an impact if people knew that the tap was going to be turned off, so to speak. Regular over-use offenders can be monitored more closely by meter-readers, who can then come good on the threat of no more for that period. Instant incentive to actually reduce consumption. The same applies for water use.

You raised some interesting points so I have added two sections to the FAQ for you.

"Renewables should be supported, I have no problem with that. I do think though that a subsidy program is more effective and more flexible than a tax system."

http://www.ozpolitic.com/green-tax-shift/green-tax-shift-FAQ.html#Q5

But until renewables are developed to the stage that they can supply sufficient energy for our needs, then we need to focus on reducing the need.

True, however, the choice between the two options should be dictated by rational economics. In terms of the technology, renewables can supply however much you want and are unlikely to come down in price significantly. They are a mature technology. The marginal price for renewables goes up with the % of supply they provide.

"That's where restrictions come into play."

http://www.ozpolitic.com/green-tax-shift/green-tax-shift-FAQ.html#Q6