Comments on John Daley and Tristan Edis “Markets still best climate option”, 7/04/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/markets-still-best-climate-option/story-e6frgd0x-1226034919878
Parts of the article are nonsensical, as the following paragraph from it shows:
"Government should also set a floor to prevent the carbon price falling too low, potentially destroying the value of the market, if emissions reduction turns out to be easier than anticipated."
Isn't it crazy to have a carbon price that is higher than necessary to achieve the target of reduction in emissions?
Why is there a need to artificially inflate extra costs than necessary, for the purpose of that market?
Isn't it suggesting that kind of market would have unnecessarily higher costs?
Is it just to make that market for some people to profit, from that market at the expense of taxpayers and consumers, the same as those genius Wall Street financial engineers to create various complex financial products that led to the near death experience not long ago?
What a silly idea it is!
PS: it may imply that a carbon tax instead of the kind of concept of a carbon market is better and should be preferred.