Consumer compensation too little and its distribution unfair

Comments on James Massola “Carbon compensation via tax system: Combet”, 13/04/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/carbon-compensation-via-tax-system-combet/story-e6frg6xf-1226038354055

The Gillard government and Minister Combet have surrendered to powerful business lobbies and have sold out the interests of Australian consumers and personal taxpayers.

By any measure, 50% for consumers in total is too low and too little. Instead, the bulk, 80 per cent at the least, of the revenue should be returned to consumers.

Further, there is no justification that other consumers are not compensated for higher energy costs.

Carbon pricing and tax should not be used for income redistribution purposes. It should simply be distributed to each and every Australian resident living in Australia, according to well established and accepted economic principle to deal with environmental externalities, such as carbon emissions.

Each and every Australian resident is entitled to the same right of reasonable climate.

As such they should be compensated equally for damages done to their rights.

This is another case of a government lost its way.

PS: According to the report, 'Mr Combet said there were a number of ways to deliver the billions of dollars in assistance.

"One of the most efficient ways is through the tax and transfer system," he said, pointing to likely tax cuts or welfare changes.'

But why didn't he see the more efficient and just way to distribute the tax proceeds equally among Australian residents? Isn't an equal distribution more efficient and more just than his distorted way that is still unclear yet?