“In theory an emissions trading scheme can provide a sound market-based means of capping carbon emissions. But a necessary condition is for a world-wide trading scheme. It is clear that there is no such scheme. And it is clear that there is no possibility of such over the next decade.

Under these circumstances, for Australia to introduce a perfect ETS would be silly. But to pass the amended CPRS would be lunacy. It would be considerably superior to introduce an appropriate carbon tax, which would be more efficient and less prone to corruption and rent seeking. The dead weight cost of the CPRS is magnified with relatively low emissions reductions targets – the community bears this cost. It does not deliver least cost abatement – more likely it delivers maximum cost abatement”.

This is wrong. It isn’t a necessary condition at all.

Still he has provided some laughs. This must have been priceless,
“the National Water Commission, which insisted on a presentation of the technology for local physicists.
The Rain Corporation presented research documents written in Russian, explained by a Russian researcher who spoke to local experts in Russian.
“It’s kind of difficult, because he didn’t speak English or understand English, so we didn’t get a lot of information there, and as I said, such written information as they had was all in Russian. So couldn’t get anything out of that,” Professor Fletcher said.”

If you read his book “Battlelines” you will see that your comment could not be further from the truth.