Sorry let me rephrase, a carbon tax would have done these things:
- reduced Australia's carbon emissions (not a massive deal by itself)
- built up a public repository of cash that could have been allocated to something useful, like funding the fire services
- lead by example; we will now never know if Australia's leading by example would have encouraged a wider implementation of carbon tax schemes and a reduction in carbon emissions
You are correct that it would have not by itself mitigated the natural drought cycle in Australia, however the opportunity to reduce the impact was lost - and Australia is poorer for it.
Finally, I did not suggest that a carbon tax would have stopped these fires, only that I would like to do an analysis between what the potential sum of taxes would have been versus the donation totals.
- reduced Australia's carbon emissions (not a massive deal by itself)
- built up a public repository of cash that could have been allocated to something useful, like funding the fire services
- lead by example; we will now never know if Australia's leading by example would have encouraged a wider implementation of carbon tax schemes and a reduction in carbon emissions
You are correct that it would have not by itself mitigated the natural drought cycle in Australia, however the opportunity to reduce the impact was lost - and Australia is poorer for it.
Finally, I did not suggest that a carbon tax would have stopped these fires, only that I would like to do an analysis between what the potential sum of taxes would have been versus the donation totals.
Cheers.