Carbon Tax on emitters: Emitters pass cost on to consumers (including usual or increased profit margin): Consumers try to reduce consumption = success relies on consumer action. (Emitters' profits increase.)

Consumers install pink batts, solar hot water and/or solar electric (for philanthropic or cost reduction purposes): Government pulls the plug on subsidies and grid-input rebate rates (because the "schemes" become too popular, and exceed budget) = Consumers left with Government debt and with personal debt for various solar and power-saving measures, and Emitters get free "green" power to sell on at a higher rate to those philanthropists who signed-up for "clean" energy = Consumers carry the can (again). (Emitters' profits increase.)

Government provides additional funding to low income families (hit hardest by flow-on cost increases - electricity, food, fuel, transport), and affluent families say "what me worry": Consumption increases per favour of the Government: Consumption and Emissions go back to "normal" = Emitters' profits increase, emissions increase.

Government provides subsidies to high consumption industry = passing on Carbon Tax receipts = production costs contained, but administration costs added = some increase in local and export product prices. (And no impact on emissions.)

ETS: "Sleight of hand" proposition to save forests, to promote investment in agro-forestry and "green" agricultural measures, and to introduce new low emissions and/or low energy consumption production technology: Permits purchased from "brokers": little money provided to affected native land holders or pre-existing agricultural or logging interests: opportunities rife for ripoff and double-dipping = Government saves on subsidies for relevant R&D and direct investment in renewables, but incurs increased "compliance" administration costs = questionable impact on emissions or innovation, but government "contains" budget. (Brokers make huge profits, Emitters pocket any C-Tax offset savings, the planet and consumers are no better off.)

Direct Action? Or, pacify concerns with "smoke and mirrors"?

(And: Populate or Perish? You've got to be joking.)

Actually, it would be quite practical to use a three term controller
simulation in the model that calculates the tax.
A three term controller is one that uses proportional, integral and
derivative functions and are used to control chemical processes that
react much faster than the climate.
They also do things such as control the flight of rockets, aircraft
and thousands of other processors.

It would form a classical three term control loop.
It would take into account non linear responses and inputs.
Actually from a control systems point of view it is very clever.

Take for instance, one of the inputs, aside from the obvious
temperature, co2 concentration etc, could be the rate of change of
plant growth, which could be measured by a satellite and transmitted
to the control computer.

All automatic and not a politician in sight.

Gezzzzz Bazz, your frighting the voters.....:)

Planet3

The world as one.........

All the best.

Planet3

Planet nice to see you drop in.
But the inane comment the world is one?
Wish it was!
If we leave the economics out of the debate we may then see the problem.
Then we can look for answers.
No frost yet in my area, usual is 22 to 28 a year near half by now.
One at least below zero.
Its the carbon tax what did it? Think not.

I’ve always said that warmists and sceptics should be united as far as action on climate change goes.

It is only the denialists, who delight in erroneously calling themselves sceptics, that should be philosophically disparate. But then, there cannot be any such thing as a credible denialist, because no one can say for sure that climate change isn’t happening or that it is isn’t at least partly anthropogenic.

So even those sceptics who think that AGW is very unlikely should in all logic be aligned with those who think very strongly that it is definitely happening and is of enormous importance. Everyone on this spectrum should be advocating strong action, either because they are convinced that we need to or because it is highly pertinent to err on the side of caution if they are not sure.

I have said this many times on OLO. It doesn’t get much response from the denialists that call themselves sceptics. It seems that this simple logic is just irrefutable. All they can say in response to it is AGW isn’t happening!

What we really need is to make government much more independent of the vested-interest forces that strongly push for business as usual, and ever-more of it, ie; never-ending rapid expansionism.... which the denialists are all strongly in favour of.

If we could make governments properly independent of this enormous bias, then we’d have a chance of addressing AGW, as well as everything else that would take us towards a sustainable future.

The main problem with Professor McKitrick’s idea is that within this hopelessly biased political arena, which is present in Australia and most other democracies and non-democracies around the world, it wouldn’t happen, or at least not in anything more than a token manner.

So perhaps the most important thing with respect to climate change is to push for the real democratic independence of government.