Gideon,

You have taken a fair amount of space to explain clearly why we should not be putting a price on carbon dioxide emissions. The reason this requires so much space is of course clear.

1. No one has the faintest clue as to what to do to reduce carbon emissions, how to account for it, who should be doing it, when we should start, and what the targets, in their view, should be.

2. This confusion is exactly parallel to the use of computer climate models, the infamous GCMs, which are the only devices which suggest that a reduction in the production of CO2 is necessary, which provide no physical evidence that CO2 causes global warming, for which their controllers do not understand the physics of the inputs, have even less understanding of the outputs, but go ahead and assure us that Armageddon is on its way unless we put more money into their research budgets and salaries.

3. There is little difference, between our paying taxes to fund the Cimate Units and their big computers, and those ancient rituals of human sacrifice carried out by the Incas. The money poured down the throats of the climate modelers could be better spent saving peoples lives - so in that real sence, human sacrifice is in fact "alive" and well in the twentieth century.

4. Not one "Climate" person in Australia, not Tim Flannery, not David Karoly, not Wil Steffen, not the Climate Minister, not the Prime minister, and certainly not Ross Garnaut, dares to speak the words which are asked for in the question:

"By how much will the temperature of the globe change, IF the worst projections by the IPCC were true and IF Australia stopped producing all carbon dioxide tomorrow?
Stopped power, stopped cars, stopped smelting stopped breathing?

The answer is easy! It is "By 0.02 C": - Note: this is the very worst case for zero CO2. No wonder the idea of mentioning these simple, but so prophetic words, is like a mediaval Witch with pronouncing the name of the devil.

John, your comment is one of the most uninformed and and incorrect statements I have read here.

We know how to reduce emissions. We know the measures to take. We know the predictions and the accuracies involved (you clearly haven't read into how models work and the sensitivities involved). We also don't get confused by numbers quoted out of context (0.02 indeed).

Australia as a big polluter (top 15 in the world, 1st per capita) needs to lead the way in reducing emissions. This is because we have the most to lose from not being technologically ahead of other nations. We currently rely on a lot of exports of dirty energy sources, we need to replace that with renewable technology IP. The rest of the world also has to be involved, but it hurts us more in the long run if we don't start in front.

Thanks Tim for your comment. I guess I am ignorant of many of these things and would have to allow that the proposed quantity in the legislation is based on a 5% reduction from 2000 - meaning we will have to reduce our output by 28% of what it would have been under business as usual by 2020. Is thatcorrect?

My concern for the measurements is based on the very wide range of activities which burn fossil fuel, including methane escaping from coal mines - which I expect would have to close down perhaps. There have been some reports that the actual determination of carbon dioxide release is often very dificult to measure and is not simply a function of the fuel burned since some of the residue is in the form of fixed carbon. However, with sufficient analysis, Iexpect it could be done. The other thing which concerns me is the projection by the governernment of the need to purchase overseas credits to meet our 5% obligation. How will the reduction in carbon dioxide going into the atmosphere be monitore from this multiple source of credits? Will we employ overseas inspectors to monitor, in the other country, the manufacturers who will sell the carbon credits on the basis that they have/are/will reduced/reducing/reduce their emissions by the amount corresponding the money we have paid at $10, $23, $50, $100 ... per tonne?

Perhaps I am also ignorant of the temperature reduction figure which I estimated from the output of CO2 by Australia, the forcing quoted in the latest report by the IPCC based on the F = ln(C/Co) and the temperature rise associated with F. This calculation comes to 0.02 C as I said. The 5% reduction based on the carbon dioxide tax is approximately 1/20 of this or 0.001 C. However, could you do the correct calculation for me as it would only be a couple of lines of algebra. I would appreciate that.

I would also appreciate very much some help in understanding the processes for reducing carbon dioxide output by Australia. I acept that we could do it if we put our minds to building nuclear power stations and burning our own uraniium, or better processed fuels, instead of sendig it to India and elsewhere. However, this appears to be an unacceptable solution to too many people for it ever to happen, at least in the foreseeable future. Thus, if you could provide a brief outline of the process(s) for reducing carbon dioxide - eg. On the basis of solar and wind power I would be grateful.

Could you:
1. give me a number for the cost of establishing each 500 mW station, say, to provide sufficient quantities of power to allow the full closure of coal fired power stations to reduce our emissions by the goals of 5% and by 20%.

2. Name the locations for those power stations which will optimise production and distribution.

3. Estimate the cost of power per unit (kWh) which we will have to pay to provide a 5% return on the capital invested, to allow for necessary expansion to meet future requirements and for the maintenance of the working equipment. A return of significantly more than 5% would probably be required but we can use 5% for now.

Thanks again and I look forward to your help. John Nicol jonicol18@bigpond.com,

Tim, you've had a fairly big shot at John's position without actually answering his point. You state :
"We know how to reduce emissions. We know the measures to take. We know the predictions and the accuracies involved (you clearly haven't read into how models work and the sensitivities involved). We also don't get confused by numbers quoted out of context (0.02 indeed)."

If you provided details to these above mentioned facts and then answered John's post point by point, you position may have some validity. Currently it serves simply as a derisive put-down.

My problem with the Clean Energy Futures package is that it is a hideously and needlessly complex response to a simple problem.

The simple problem is that we need to stop recycling geosequestered carbon to the climate system (atmosphere, ocean and biosphere) as rapidly as we can.

The simple solution is to substitute non-fossil fuel use for all fossil use.

The simple way to do this is to put a consumption tax on fossil fuel, and continue increasing the tax rate until we have priced fossil fuel use out of the economy.

At the same time, we CUT all other tax rates so that people have both the money to invest in low/zero equipment and technology, and the carbon tax minimising incentive to make such investments. It's called "revenue neutrality", it results in the productive economy not being squeezed to a halt by over-taxation.

By making it a consumption tax, to which all fossil fuel users are subject, rather than just hitting up the "500 largest emitters" we transform voters from consumers into citizens, we include all the citizens in this essential work.

Andy, he is trotting out the same tired arguments that get debunked in every comments section for articles regarding climate change. Besides that, each of his points is very clearly wrong.

Take his first point "no one knows what to do". Really? There have been dozens of articles here on the subject. This article even alludes to what needs to be done. Saying that I need to refute his statements is just a way of derailing the conversation that should happen here in the comments section.

The answers to these and more questions have already been covered in the sustainable energy reports that were produced earlier this year. Have you read them? Very interesting. Also worth watching the lead report writer, he covered a lot of material and has a vast understanding of what needs to be done. Links are below in my reply to David.

Tim, I thought you could at least calculate the degree of warming caused by Australia's CO2 output over the next 100 years! Have a go, there's a good boy.

Seriously though, if you read the "Sustainable Energy Reports" you will find that the figures are not given directly. You need to go to the IPCC Report 2007 AR4 Chapters 9 and 10. I don't see the figure for the warming from Australia's output in the lead report above. Could you give me the paragraph number. I have not seen the costs of power from alternative clean energy sources in that report either. But better still, could you just give me your figures whether from your own calculations or from the reports youare confident show these numbers. I plead ignorant of the references. John Nicol jonicol18@bigpond.com

John