All well and good. If it was an absolute certainty that it was only going to cost me $10/week AND it could be shown that it was actually going to have any positive impact on climate change, I'd be all for it.
Unfortunately, nobody has convinced me on either point.
The ice cap is losing around 1,000 km^3 of ice every year. That is a block of ice 1 km wide, 1 km high and 1,000 km long. Spending A$10 per week (starting 1 July 2010) will not have any effect on the rate or acceleration of ice loss. Just taking the current rate of ice volume loss, which is accelerating, the Arctic should be virtually ice free in the summer of 2015:
Likewise atmospheric CH4, Methane, is rapidly increasing, about 6 times greater increase than CO2 from the base in the 1800s:
Methane has, over it's ~25 year life, about 72 times the climate forcing as does CO2. The current level is ~2,000 ppb or 2 ppm. This generates an effective value, in CO2 terms, of ~144 ppm of CO2. As CO2 is currently ~395 ppm that means Methane is currently responsible for about 1/3 of the warming as is generated by CO2.
While the focus has been on CO2, the real 600 lb gorilla in the room is Methane, which is concentrated over the Arctic:
And is one of the reasons the Arctic Ice Cap is rapidly melting away before our eyes:
There is nothing we can do to stop the Arctic Ice Cap from melting out in the hotter and hotter Arctic summers, nor can we stop the increasing release of Methane from the once frozen Arctic permafrost and sea bed stores.
When Methane reaches 5 ppm, it will be responsible for as much warming as CO2 at 360 ppm. Once we get there, in a few years, Methane will then take over from CO2. Or basically we can now emit as much CO2 as we wish, because we have allowed the Arctic Ice Cap to melt enough to open Pandora's box of Methane release.
So save you money to spend on water, food and border security taxes.