Rudd's ETS is neither the most effective nor the least costly

Comments on Paul Kelly “Labor at crossroads in test of Rudd's character”, 10/02/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/labor-at-crossroads-in-test-of-rudds-character/story-e6frg6zo-1225828481744

Paul, while most of your arguments seemingly make sense to a confused and ill-informed Australian public, a lot of them are wrong or incorrect, I am afraid to say.

For example, you say that: "He insists the ETS is "the most effective and least costly" way of tackling emissions. Rudd's argument is correct." Why is "the ETS", that is, the Rudd/Wong's ETS, the most effective and least costly way of doing that? You just took its face value/argument went with what Rudd says with no analysis at all. That may be because you either did not do an analysis or could not do it and has no way to know whether it is or not, does it.

For a moment why is "the ETS" more effective and least costly than a carbon tax that would have a wider coverage and send the most accurate price/cost signals?

Or, why can "the ETS" that would involve so much bureaucracy and traders with no real or added benefit be the least costly?

While I respect you as an acute political commentator and believe you are honest in your comments, I would urge you to do some necessary work or have some advices from those who understand the issues to make your argument really hold water. Otherwise, it is no more or no less than a piece of populist opinion.