tenuous at best

Debate around the proposed system on carbon trading has centred on what concessions the political parties can be extract, rather than the real question; what benefit would such a system bring? In reality, a cap-and-trade system brings very little benefit at a very high cost. According to research conducted by the Copenhagen Consensus (a group of the world's leading climate economists) we would only reduce temperatures by 0.3 degrees by the end of the century from $800 billion worth of spending. For such a large investment the overall good is minimal. The Copenhagen Consensus' estimates for every dollar spent only 90 cents of benefit is realised. This is if the money is used in the most efficient way possible which is unlikely to be the case. If you take the EU's lead the realised benefit is in the 3 to 4 cent mark.

A much more responsible approach would be to take the money and invest it in the development of alternate energy sources. From the same research, it is estimated that investment in R&D would have a return of $16 for every dollar spent. Alternative fuel sources would also realise benefits far sooner than any carbon trading scheme. The only benefit of carbon offset credits at a consumer level is an increase in a fuzzy feeling as you believe you have done something for the environment. At a business level companies can continue to pollute guilt free. In reality the benefits such a system are tenuous at best.

We know the planet is warming. Do we want to take an extremely expensive path of carbon trading for little benefit or take the responsible path of low carbon and high-income from alternate energy R&D?