carbon tax is 'unconstitutional', page-68

I've been reflecting on the consequences of "ownership" of fossil carbon pollution. If this High Court challenge goes ahead, the decision could have consequences in regard to the damage that increasing [CO2] has caused and will continue to cause. I've considered three possible scerarios but there are certain to be many more.

1 The High Court upholds the modest price on fossil carbon pollution and the pollutant becomes the property of the Commonwealth.

This outcome would be analogous to an individual taking rubbish to the dump and paying the local authority for the privilege. The rubbish becomes the property of the local authority.

Once fossil carbon pollution has been permitted, the Commonwealth would be carrying the can in terms of compensation for losses due to sea level rise and identifiably AGW related adverse weather events.

2 The High Court upholds the modest price on fossil carbon pollution but the pollutant remains the property of the polluter.

This outcome would be a worst case for industries being levied by the price on fossil carbon. Not only would they have to pay for polluting but they would retain responsibility for damage.

3 The High Court rejects the modest price on fossil carbon pollution and the pollutant becomes the property of the States.

This would be a worst case scenario for both the Commonwealth and the States. The states wold assume liability for the pollutant and they would get no additional financial benefit in return.