The purpose of this comparison was largely as a result of seeing a rollform steel products suppliers company Prius complete with trendy new logo parading down Glenelg. Now I know like most companies, their reps and mangers have largely driven Aussie sixes, but here was the new green face obviously. Whilst you might forgive doctors’ wives for conspicuous badge wearing, there’s no forgiving sound business heads for that. Their sales reps could easily drive themselves and their briefcases around in Colts(like security guards in Toyota Echos mostly and now Hyundai Getz) and spend the balance on solar cells on their factory and sales outlets. That makes more green economic sense in the current marketplace. These wankers are playing around being conspicuous greenies.

However, on your specific question about the USA and China with respect to why they’re so polluting despite nuclear power, you have to look at the amount of nuclear power actually deployed. In the USA roughly 20% of electricity, and only 8% of total energy, comes from nuclear power. In China, it’s a much smaller fraction again.

If you want to see the potential for nuclear power to cut greenhouse emissions I suggest you compare France and Germany, or Sweden and Denmark. Most of France’s electricity is nuclear; only a small part of Germany’s is. Denmark, so beloved of environmentalists for its wind power program, pumps out roughly 66% more CO2 per capita than Sweden.

There are good arguments against nuclear power; that it can’t cut greenhouse emissions by a large amount isn’t one.

Observa, the current-gen Prius is a considerably larger and more luxurious car than the Colt. A fairer comparison would be against the Lancer or a Honda Civic. That said, you’re quite right that there are much cheaper ways to reduce one’s carbon emissions than buying a hybrid (or, for that matter, putting solar cells on your roof).

Compare the two cars’ rated fuel economies and we’re about to finish the picture here. Prius the best in the marketplace at 4.4L/100Km and the fuel miser of the Mitsi range at 5.6L/100Km. That’s a difference of 1.2L/100Km. So quickly you can see the savings facing the average punter wanting to buy a car for 10 years , driving an average 16000 km/yr (that Mitsi warranty remember?) The Prius would save 192L of fuel a year over the 10 years meaning an extra 1920L at say a generous current price of $1.30/L means a projected present vale saving of $2496. Now if fuel rises in price that could look better for the Prius, but against that is the extra cost of financing that $18,410 price difference and stamp duty difference. At present values, the wife and I can save $18410 – $2496= $15914 over the 10 year life of the car and what’s more save that up front. A Prius owner could buy a Mitsi Colt and use that saving to put solar cells on their roof, probably negating the carbon footprint of the Mitsi altogether. (Mitsubishi claim it produces 134g/km which is 2.144 tonnes/yr at 16000km) My conclusion? Prius drivers are economically and environmentally, illiterate wankers.

I have no doubt that Howard and his government have no interest in the subject and Ross gittins was very critical of the focus being put on inconsequential token things while nothing is being decided on the broader important issues identified by Stern and the Productivity Commission Report.

Similarly, Howard running around pushing the nuclear Power option makes little sense when he knows that it too is detrimental to the coal industry and that the price increases needed to cut Green House emissions will also make renewables competitive and probably more able to be delivered quicker and more cheaply than nuclear.

The thing I can’t get my head around is seeing both the US and China have had nuclear power for yonks , why are they then the world’s worst polluters and by huge margins over other countries if it is such ‘a clean green option’. I read somewhere today that car emissions in the US only account for about 15% of emmissions in the US.

Another interesting thing I noted this week was as soon as the Productivity Report came down the Carbon Tax option was immediately rejected by Howard.

Most commentators seem to think the decision is important and far-reaching but are not sure what it’s going to mean.

Observa, the Supreme Court has to rule on cases brought before it. If there is law they apply it. If the pollies have been slack and there’s no law, they still have to make a decision, but only in terms of the case before them. If the pollies don’t like what the judges have done they can still make law to set things right in the future.

The only time they get to over-rule the pollies is when they make laws that are unconstitutional and someone contests them.

If the pollies think certain decisions should be made by a panel of experts not subject to political pressures then they set one up – by statute. Hence the RBA.