Carbon trading versus carbon tax, and other issues

Comments on Robert Gottliebsen “Four carbon controversies”, 31/07/2009, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Four-carbon-controversies-pd20090731-UFSZY?OpenDocument&src=sph

The science of greenhouse gases and its effects on global warming must show it is correct without reasonable doubts. There is a danger that it is spurious science, because of the short period of data and some possible other reasons that may highly correlate to carbon gases emissions.

A universal carbon tax in a country and using that revenue to subsidise some consumers and businesses are a better way than carbon trading, in terms of universal coverage, efficiency, minimised costs and avoiding the arbitrary allocation of emissions permits. It has its drawback in that it is not known how much the tax should be to achieve a certain reduction target, similar to using interest rate for macroeconomic control.

Nuclear should be debated. Australia is deeply contradictory in its approach to the nuclear issue. It has been a matter of being indulgent because of its lucks with natural endowments, its immature emotions and lack of understanding of nuclear safety and wastes. It needs a change and it is time to change.

Arvi Parbo is correct in one narrow sense, but is plainly wrong. It is correct that in the long term, if developing countries don’t join the actions, there is no hope to achieve emissions reduction to a desirable level. But that does not mean that they have and must join the actions immediately as required for developed nations. Once the developed nations start reducing their emissions seriously, then it is the time to discuss with the developing nations for their participation and the mechanisms for doing that.

So Arvi Parbo is confusing the issues unnecessarily and risks muddy the water and undermining the global efforts all together, unless that is his / her intention to do so.