Quote:
I think this assumes that the principal behavior the tax is designed to change is all at the consumer level. I am not sure that's 100% correct.
Considering that we are all individually and corporately (at an industry level) consumers and producers of CO2 I don't see what you are objecting to especially considering this statement that you also make:
Quote:
Government AND Opposition. They both have the same CO2 reduction targets. (5% less than 2000 levels by 2020 I think).
I see that you haven't bothered to comment on whether a miniscule change in our 1.5% global contribution WILL actually measurably impact the climate change models...
What I was saying (in the first bit) was that there is no great expectation that consumers will change their individual behavior. So no individual is expected to fly less, for example, for the scheme to have an effect.
In terms of our contribution to global emissions, you're absolutely correct. No reduction in our emissions will lead to much of a difference in itself. That is true of almost every country. Collective action is required if it is to make a difference to CO2 levels. And even them we're talking about a slowing of the rise for quite a while. Anything faster will require a much higher price / more drastic action and there is zero appetite for that except among the more extreme Greens.
So when we go to the G20, or APEC, or EAS or RIO+20, and ask the rest of the world to do something, and our emissions are higher per capita than most (and land size if not relevant, it's emissions per person that counts) and they say "well, what are you doing", what do you propose our response is?
It'd be like the Japanese saying "why don't the Norwegians stop whaling?"
And please don't say nobody else is doing anything. That's just not correct.