I heard on a broadcast this morning that the CO2 tax legislation has
been written in such a way that it will not be possible to repeal it.
This seemed impossible to me at first sight but the economist that
stated it said it would cost too much to repeal the tax and that it
was locked in so that no matter what changes occur in the future we are stuck with it.

Can this possibly be true ?

Its hard to believe this Government would be competent enough to carry out their intentions. They have failed with everything to date.

No Bazz not in the way it is written.
It is not a Trojan horse, no foul play here.
An understanding first of this, Abbott and Gillard have the very same reduction target 5% by 2020.
Gillard proposes paying for some of the extra costs via the tax.
And note, some industry support.
Industry, under Labor, as is the case increasingly world wide.
Can/will buy and sell international Carbon credits.
Sell, and pay, for credits generated ,by less emissions, world wide, remember this is a world wide problem.
Internationally, this has always been the favored way.
Now Abbott, same target different way of achieving it, will pay business that reduces out puts , that pay, estimates are 14 billion comes from us, general revenue, tax.
He also plans to reward those who trap carbon in the ground ,farmers.
Now he is about to fail to stop the introduction of this tax.
To remove it after it starts he has pledged to do so, he must take back pension increases.
Destroy the value of business investments in carbon credits.
Tony Abbott is a flim flam man, he has no intention of removing the tax, every intention of breaking all time records for non core promises.
And even most conservatives under stand both this and the fact Gillard is so bad keeps him in his job, nothing but a split hair between them.
Best serve our country by stepping down both of them today.

Belly, your bias is showing.
I think this is something else we must disagree upon.
If the tax is not imposed then the pension increase will not be needed.
Seems logical to me, why is it not logical for the labour party ?

Question for pollies.
Is the purpose of the tax to change our behaviour ?
How will it do that ?

Question for pollies.
Has the IPCC rerun its computer models using the latest fossil fuel
availability figures ?

Question for pollies and yourself.
By how much will the temperature be reduced by the tax ?

If you cannot answer that fundamental last question what is the
purpose of the science ?
Surely it is not all guess work ? -_-_- is it ?

of course we will be stuck with it
built in are many default clauses

meaning as usual with the labratter trickey legislation
it will cost more to get out..than staying it

for an egsample look only as far as logging gifts buy back in tassie
or water desal in nsw and qld...or water buyback..

or privatisation of water..via all con-nex..that will cost local councils JUST IN STAMP duty..60 million to 200 million alone

these ratters that took over the alp
are far too clever to let their mates loose the cash cow
that will bailout the other carbon tax scemes..by setting a market minimum..[to prop up global carbon credit speculaters]

heck look at the clever smokers tax..[indeexed to increase annually]
every year it rises abouve the inflation cost...that takes a very clever mind

that same mind is going to shaft you next
next we tax lollies and booze

the obese with diabetus
and the drunk..the athiest pmt...likes moralisation legislation
and serving the backdoor money men

juliar guile lard
must go before it becomes ratified

but ignorants without a clue
still think her hips wont shrink

Bazz, the aim is to reduce GHG emissions so as to limit the increase in temperatures to what they would otherwise be. The aim is not to reduce temperature.

The revenue collected from the tax (and its disbursement) has been explained in various formats yet it seems people still don't understand and/or are confused.

I put this down to the deliberate disinformation and misrepresentation orchestrated by those opposed to the tax on ideological grounds - Andrew Bolt, Alan Jones and Australia's Liberal/National Party Opposition obviously come to mind.

This Wiki quote will help answer your last two questions

>> Many issues damage the relationship of science to the media and the use of science and scientific arguments by politicians. As a very broad generalisation, many politicians seek certainties and facts whilst scientists typically offer probabilities and caveats. However, politicians' ability to be heard in the mass media frequently distorts the scientific understanding by the public. <<