There are a lot of things to say about a proposed carbon tax, but i'll stick with the two most obvious:
1. Show me proof that the amount of Carbon humans produce affect global warming.
2. Prove that there is such a thing as global warming. A few record temp days here and there proves nothing!
1. Carbon dioxide is a heavier gas than our atmosphere on average so with a higher mass will retain more heat than a lighter gas. When coal is burnt it releases carbon dioxide as a by product. Before it is burnt said carbon is not in the atmosphere. In absolute terms we are having an impact on the climate. I don't think that can be questioned.
2. Global temperatures change over time There is lots of evidence of this in geology (Glaciers leave there marks in places a glacier would be out of place today). Then when the dinosaurs were cruising around it is understood that it was much warmer than today. The extent of many animals considered unsuited to living at sub polar latitude have left fossilised evidence that they were living there along with forests. Much of the carbon during this period of warmth was contained in the atmosphere at this time trapping more of the suns heat. This carbon gradually got bedded down at the bottom of the oceans and in swamps etc.
Apart from carbon though it is also understood the globe goes through a cycle of warmth / cold of which we are coming out of the end of an ice age. Indeed the current time in the schemes of things is still the tail end of an ice age.
Now all of that aside I am not convinced that global warming caused by humans is having an impact greater than what it would cost humanity to fix the problems as they arise from global warming. It has an impact but this impact is less costly than the action we are embarking on for Australoia at any rate. Not for France or other non fossil reliant economies but for Australia it is.
I think the question that has to be asked is; what is the cost of allowing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses to be dissolved in the atmosphere?
Knowing the costings they do on smoking related illness 32bn per annum apparently, us smokiers if we all quit would fix the budget deficit, lol. Anyway I suspect the government is padding out a case to suit themselves in both of these cases. I am not sure that it really is a case for acting dramatically on carbon.
I watched a doco last night about pacific islands already being effected. 10,000 people to be displaced if the globe keeps warming. Tuvolu I think it was called?
IMO back of the envelope style it would be cheaper for Australia rather than to act on climate change to give all 10,000 of them $500,000 = 5billion and resettle them in Australia. This would be Australia doing its bit for humanity. The USA could take in a hundred thousand (should help to get rid of their housing glut too!) and all this would cost less than taxing our use of carbon.
I reckon Australia is better off doing nothing on two counts; 1. We have a competitive advantage in coal and gas power over most economies. 2. We have low rainfall on our continent and in theory at least higher temps should drive more precipitation. I think this is where the research has to be done. Modelling Australias future climate post carbon change.
It is being done but I fear after the earliest work done which showed Australia as a beneficiary of climate change in terms fo rainfall now it seems we will get less. It seems this has to be nutted out and agreement around Australias position.