It's worth looking up some more papers... I remember reading some that dealt with the effect on cumulative CO2 of different groups of countries working together.

Of course, 'rationally' by setting up simple game theory you're driven inexorably to Nash equilibrium, i.e. massive global warming and catastrophe. That is one of the main weapons of the climate deniers: but any diplomatic agreement gets around that.

Of course, the science deniers in the Republican party look desperate to let the world burn for the short term profits of their paymasters, so I'm starting to think we're utterly fucked.

Sorry Dana, pretty swamped lately; will review this later tonight.

@ Mark: We're of like mind on that score.

Carbon Pricing and Emissions Limits

You have:

In fact, we showed that the benefits of carbon pricing would outweigh the costs several times over, even in the legislation proposed in the USA which would have cut the country's emissions 80% by 2050.

Strikes me as a run-on sentence.  Perhaps you could tweak it into two sentences for better flow and clarity.

And, in the next paragraph immediately following:

If Australia were to cut its emissions by 80% by 2050, the country's average emissions cut over the next 40 years would be approximately 40%. 

The average reader here will do a math:fail at this.  To be honest, I'm struggling with it a lot myself.  What am I missing here?

The rest is just perfect: succinct, to the point.

Perhaps a graphic and discussion of the Nash equilibrium?  That's basically all the Tragedy of the Commons is: an exercise of Game Theory.  Something like this:

http://www.kevinhinde.com/elearning/Strategic%20Management/images/PDGame.gif

Acting alone, an individual will choose the option that has the best outcome for himself compared to the other's no matter what the other person's choice.  This can lead to the least beneficial result.  Working together, they can maximize the overall outcome.

Got it now.  How about this then:

If Australia were to achieve its 80% emissions reduction target by 2050, the country's average emissions cut over the next 40 years would be approximately 40%.

Good suggestions Daniel and Mark, thanks.  Alex, I'll look into Nash equilibrium.  John, sure, I'll make the rebuttal more generic. 

I'm striking out in trying to find useful papers though.

For perhaps a way to phrase any Nash Equilibrium info, I answered one question on Y!A regarding that:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ara7Ved3ybHl1LO6bgA9ZrHsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20110224023243AAartpe

At the bottom. 

Surely the average emissions cut is more than 40%, because in BAU Australia’s emissions would have risen between now and 2050.