It doesn't have to be caused byhumans to make a comparison. The role CO2 has played in part climate charges is clear, in this case, the only difference is in how the CO2 entered the atmosphere. And that doesn't change the impact of the CO2, not one iota. We have a very god idea, based on multiple streams of everyone including historical science, of what a doubling of co2 will do to the climate.

Do you think the is any difference between, say, contacting lung cancer from smoking or from natural causes? Of course not, lung cancer is still lung cancer no mater what caused it.

In the natural world, there are complex interrelationships and tipping points, beyond which potentially-catastrophic multiplier effects can reverberate far and wide...

Farmers ought to know this only too well - upset the balance in the soil structure, temperature, pH, nutrient content and/or moisture content and crops will fail to thrive or die - and yields will suffer...

Similarly, if you plant a crop at the wrong time, altitude, longitude and/or latitude and you risk losing your investment...

In their own ways, both Tim Flannery and Ross Garnaut have issued a stern warning to the Government to not proceed with a carbon tax. Flannery said

if we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years
While Garnaut in his recent review update paper Global Emissions Trends was erudite in his denunciation of a carbon tax. He has kindly provided us with a table (page 40) on projected average annual growth in carbon dioxide emissions to 2030. If you take Garnaut’s projections and combine it with the current emissions by country (table 1 in the International Energy Agency’s CO2 Emissions from fuel Combustion, 2010, we find that:

•Australia’s emissions (on a business as usual basis) fall from around 1.3 per cent of global emissions to 0.7 per cent of global emissions in 2030 and to 0.4 per cent of global emissions in 2050.
•China’s emissions (on a business as usual basis) increase from 22.8 per cent of global emissions to 37 per cent of global emissions in 2030 and to 58.6 per cent of global emissions in 2050.
•Global CO2 emissions in 2030 are projected to be 57512 Mt, of which Australia would contribute 415 Mt.
So the economic and environmental case against Australia imposing a carbon tax before taking it to the people at a Federal election is compelling.

That is, whether at a modest level or a prohibitive extreme green level, a carbon tax in Australia will make no significant difference to global emissions and hence no significant difference to global temperatures.

And the current ”agreement” with China and other developing countries that allow them to continue to increase their emissions massively, will not assist in reducing the pressure from global emissions.

That leaves only one possible argument for a carbon tax: that by unilaterally imposing a tax on itself, Australia would persuade other countries to do the same. Well, as can be seen, that is not the case. Unless China (India …) make dramatic absolute cuts in their emissions – which they can’t, won’t and shouldn’t – Australia’s persuasive powers will fall on deaf ears.

This leaves us with two realistic and supporting options: adaptation and research. Because it seems the world is hoping for a miracle cure which will arrest CO2 emissions.  Over the timeframe Flannery posits – 1000 years – I’m pretty confident that human society will find a way of producing zero emission energy cheaply, efficiently and plentifully. Compare the world now to the world in 1011 AD and there have been stark changes that no one in 1011 AD could have predicted (this is well before Nostradamus was born).

Let’s be clear: the carbon ta a placebo (but a very costly placebox is not a miracle cure – at best it is).
[highlight]Let’s be clear
Global emissions trading schemes

The Government also tries to argue that we are following rather than leading the world on emissions trading schemes and carbon taxes. Helpfully the Climate Change Department provides a list of the various schemes around the world. There are 30 countries using the EU scheme, then a Swiss ETS, NZ ETS, Japanese ETS, Korean trial ETS and various ones in the United States that are already falling apart. But treating the EU countries as if they have separate ETSs is disingenuous as the countries of the EU do not have individual country targets for emissions reductions – instead they have a collective target which is hardly challenging compared with what Australia is being asked to achieve. In reality, most schemes are ineffective and have just resulted in windfall gains to some successful rent seekers and traders.

When the government tells us that it has a market system – don’t forget that it is a market that exists only because of Government decree. A carbon trading scheme has never, and will never, exist except by government fiat. Most markets in the world exist despite government regulation – they self form to allow a mutual gain from trade and do not require government regulation to create a market (except for the enforcement of property rights).




Let’s be clear: the carbon tax a placebo (but a very costly placebox is not a miracle cure – at best it is).

Still fairly true FD, You can do all the computer modelling and testing in labs you like, but it's the people who deal with the 'real' thing, that have the best understanding....