They’re still barely over half of US GHG emissions per capita. Fine they use more coal per capita, still much better than the US overall.

I’m not convinced there are many goods like that. Lower carbon alternatives exist for most consumer products. But the data also does show that Australian co2 emissions dropped when they had a carbon tax and went back up when they got rid of it. I imagine the right wing Abbot government had more reasons for getting rid of it than just being ineffective.

That just sounds like a carbon tax working as expected. Yeah the cost of buying carbon intensive stuff goes up, that’s kinda the point, de-externalizing the cost of carbon emissions.

What, the consumption of planting trees? It’s a flawed implementation not a flawed concept. It still functions like a carbon tax but they subsidized a failed tree planting campaign instead of building solar farms or something.