I think there are more kayaks in fairness. Better to tax them more.

I think the cause of global warming is all the hot air and crap spouted by climate change activists who now have nothing else to whine about.

couldnt give a toss about it

Agreed.

One big problem is that when we do measure it, it doesnt match the calculated expectations. From memory only about 60% of human generated CO2 remans in the atmosphere. I cant remember why. Anyone know???

It seems that the Carbon Tax in Europe will be raised.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1225829851288

“The price of emitting a tonne of carbon would have to rise from E15 ($23) to about E100 a tonne to discourage pollution and drive new investment in low-carbon technology, according to an all-party committee chaired by senior Conservative MP Tim Yeo”.

So the European zone goes out of its way to become even less competitive to China and India.

Why not just impose an Idiot Tax. Or a “former colonialist powers embarrassment tax”.

Adding a carbon tax on imported goods made in high polluting manufacturing countries might be a better idea.

The average carbon atom will only stay in the atmosphere for about 2.5 years before it is absorbed by plants or into the ocean.

Agreed. We could just it the "your too stupid to actually work it out and will pay anyway because you think its green and it matters in some remote way despite the fact you have no idea where the money goes" tax.

In the eleven weeks that this thread has been running, China has opened 38 new 500Mw coal fired power stations.

That is almost 20,000 Mw of NEW generation.

TOTAL Australia Coal fired generation = 28,428 Mw

By April, if this thread is continuing, China will have increased its coal fired power production by more than Australia’s entire production.

(They are not even good Power Stations. The average Chinese power station thermal efficiency is 25%, compared to Britain’s average of 37% efficiency.)

If you want to cut down on emissions, tax imports from developing nations.

Climate data 'not well organised'
"Phil Jones [...] stood by the view that recent climate warming was most likely predominantly man-made.

But he agreed that two periods in recent times had experienced similar warming. And he agreed that the debate had not been settled over whether the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the current period. "

When scientists say “most likely” and “predominantly” you know there is a problem….

We will never agree on the difference between the MWP and any current trend, because today we use complex and accurate satellite thermo optical devices, static ocean buoys etc.

Our understating of the MWP comes from monk writing in his diary “today was a bit hot”…

I favour a carbon tax at source over an ETS or a carbon tax at consumption. Basically it involves taxing carbon as it comes out of the ground in the form of coal, oil or gas.

The New Scientist has an interesting article on this:

A universal carbon tax could be far simpler. NASA climatologist James Hansen is a vocal proponent, favouring a variant in which fossil fuels are taxed at source or at a country's port of entry. The most polluting fuels in terms of carbon emissions, such as coal or tar-sand-derived oil, could be taxed more heavily than others. Consumers would not pay the tax directly, but its effect would permeate through to everything from the price of gas to the price of food: the more carbon-intensive goods or services are, the more heavily they will be hit.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...he-people.html

It would also benefit carbon producing countries like Australia, Canada, Saudi Arabia, Brazil etc over carbon emitting countries in Europe, Japan, China etc.

And how much do you think the oil companies pay the government for oil leases? They are not for free. Look at the UK's North Sea oil. The oil companies are taxed to oblivion before they get any oil out of the ground and then they have to pay a royalty on the amount of oil pumped out. Then the motorist pays tax at something exceeding 50% (87% in the UK). Then there is GST which is a tax on tax. Carbon is already taxed to the hilt.

Such a tax would only work if every country implemented it, and implemented it honestly and fairly.

If it were unilaterally implemented it would simply make Australians suffer.

What is wrong with an import tax on goods from high carbon generating nations? The tax rate is set on each nation based upon their carbon output - NOT per head of population, NOT per sq km etc.

If CO2 is doing the damage, then tax it on its production levels, not on a fancy socially adjusted basis .

Taxing Australian coal at source will simply make Chinese and Indian coal cheaper, stuffing up our balance of payments. China will still push CO2 out by using local coal, and the climate (if AGW is correct) will continue to suffer.

The West’s only power in this matter is taxes on developing nations goods.

Remember these facts:
1. China has 1.03 TRILLION tonnes of coal reserves. The third largest such reserves in the world.
2. China is now the worlds biggest coal producer and consumer.
3. China imports coal from unregulated third world Asian nations such as Vietnam and Indonesia, which supplied 76 percent of its total imports in 2007.
4. China experts cold to regulated first world Asian nations. The Republic of Korea (ROK) and Japan took up about 65 percent of its total exports

Taxing coal in Australia will do bugger all. The biggest consumer and polluter buys it from cowboy nations like Indonesia, and sells it to countries like Japan.

I cant think of a more stupid plan.

Unless you were a Marxist.

Excellent point, and completely overlooked.

We already tax carbon very highly....

Your plan sounds completely unworkable. How could Australia calculate how much carbon went into the production of a barbie doll made in China? It sounds like old-fashioned blanket protectionism to me.

Australia would have to start lobbying the other big carbon extracting economies to jointly implement the carbon tax at source. I don't propose the tax starts of at a very high level, so it shouldn't have a major impact on coal exports. The fact of the matter is that demand for Australian coal is so strong that it would probably only result in a gradual slowing of the coal export growth rate, not actual cuts to export volumes.

Surely, the whole point of any serious effort to reduce CO2 emissions will have to eventually involve slowing the rate we use coal, oil and ultimately gas in favour of renewable energy? Wouldn't it be better for Australian tax payers to get extra revenue in exchange for an eventual and gradual reduction in the volume of our coal exports? With the failure of the cap and trade approach, the alternative in many countries is likely to be a carbon tax on consumption which means the revenue benefits will go to the big carbon emitting countries like the U.S. and China. Not a good outcome for Australia.

So long as the U.S. and South Africa can be brought on board, then more than 40% of world coal reserves will be taxed at source. Given the problems China already has in exploiting its own coal reserves (they're inconveniently located and of poor quality), this will create added incentive for them to become more efficient energy users.

Coal is a dirty fuel source. 10% of TOTAL GLOBAL CO2 emissions come from coal consumption in China alone. In addition, it is a huge contributor to horrific air quality in some areas and 14 Chinese coal miners die, on average, every day. If the world burns all its coal reserves, this will have catastrophic consequences.

The case for weaning ourselves off oil consumption is every bit as compelling. If we don't start cutting our use of oil, the world economy may drop off a cliff when we reach Peak Oil (the point where demand no longer leads to increased supply) and oil prices sky rocket. Unfortunately, we may already be too late as Peak Oil could occur in the next couple of years.

But scientists always put caveats to their findings or conclusions.