Roxy the Rat Girl wrote: How do you force business industry to reduce pollution without an economic driver?
I'm not sure of the legal requirements to make it work, but the offer of grants to assist changing the processes and equipment could be the carrot and legislated penalties or levies for not reducing output could function as the stick. Not being able to pass the penalties on to the consumer would be a motivating factor in decision making.
I can't see simply pushing up the price of energy to the consumer doing anything to reduce output as we need certain minimum amounts of energy to run our lives as we wish to live them. So, we just pay whatever it costs, and only those who can't afford to keep paying suffer. Under the system we just experienced, the energy used cost more, but was generally still used, the pollution from the main energy sources remained much the same, and only where the money was held changed. A trading scheme doesn't actively force change either - the supplier can buy credits from people who grow trees elsewhere and go on with the same technology as it costs nothing - the end-user pays the bill.
A Carbon Tax may have worked if the money were raised from the companies (not the consumer), and was isolated from general revenue and used to financially support those companies who were prepared to upgrade their production systems. I think both the Greens and the Democratic initially proposed something like that, but the Greens compromised the details with the ALP in exchange for other benefits to themselves as a political party.