Some may be doing this as part of an ambit claim , positioning themselves for the argument – but I would argue that it is too simplistic to suggest that all of these companies can be put into that particular slot.

We need to treat these issues a little more seriously.

If we do not treat this with a lot more gravitas then sweeping statements we could also sweep away the jobs of thousands of decent people.

These is no magic formula which says as we kill off well-paid ‘brown’ jobs we will automatically, and at the same rate, create replacement jobs, good new well-paid ‘green’ jobs, in exactly the same towns and regions where the brown jobs are concentrated.

I disagree with the coal-fired generators being given free permits, or being allowed to just pass them onto customers – why should customers be made to feel responsible for the problem of GHG emissions, when the electricity is being generated in the most GHG intensive way known? There’s only so much of an improvement in efficiency that is practically do-able – we all still want to and need to use electricity.

The same companies that own and operate the coal-fired plants can of course – and should be encouraged to – be the same ones that build, own and operate the clean solar-thermal, nuclear, geothermal, natural gas, etc generating capacity that can and should be built to replace the coal burners. This new infrastructure can be built in the same places, such as the Latrobe valley, keeping jobs in those centers – in many cases many of essentially the same jobs, in electrical engineering, thermohydraulics, and so forth that keep the coal fired plants running can be carried across to different types of thermal power plants, hopefully.

There’s too much in the proposed scheme that rewards the actions we are trying to change to achieve carbon emissions reductions. This is no doubt due to lobbying, and the confusion of the compensation issue. There is, consequently, a strong need to address the false message that free permits and compensation to the big emitters are the best way to soften the impact of the transition to sustainability. Why should we all continue to share in the negative climate impacts of these companies when they continue to concentrate profits in the hands of their shareholders?

The ABC report on the AWU’s call is here:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/23/2311635.htm

A long time since you have been to Mackay Brian, if you say “of course Sugar”.

Only about 30 years or so, SATP.

In remember Mackay as a town of about maybe 30,000 people. I was shocked to read in the AFR later this morning that there were 90,000. This site says 75,000 so whatever you say.

The worst polluters given free permits, no cap yet, no emission reduction commitments yet. They even claimed that it was “in line with” Garnaut’s recommendations (without mentioning the petrol excise cave in or giving permits to domestic high polluters).

Not good at all. I wish they were spending all the money on getting emissions down rather than fancy hollow schemes, roadshows and advertising. It’s the Hollowmen – an episode in advance.

Rudd, wong et al are playing this perfectly.”

Arrgh! The transition to a low carbon civilization (let alone a carbon-negative civilization) is expensive and complicated. We should have started 10 or 20 years ago. The time for short-term reductions was ages ago, how is it reasonable to wait still longer before starting on the short-term? The suggestion that ‘we have to wait for the rest of the world’ is just nonsense! There’s a million things that need to be done and we can get a head-start on the rest of the world just by starting NOW!

The ETS is an opportunity to kickstart processes with a lot of money, but the ‘Rudd and Wong’s perfect play’ is to give the money to shareholders in polluting enterprises, to people who have known for over a decade that this change was coming but have not made any effort to prepare for the future.

The ETS is a step forward but what’s proposed must be just about the smallest possible step that can be taken to move away from zero. Which reminds me of Zeno’s paradoxes ‘proving’ that motion is impossible. Looking at the Green paper and reactions to it, I wonder if he was right.

d

“CPRS is not about CO2 reduction in the short term – it’s about putting in place a permit trading scheme that one day will be use to pull back C02 emissions – but not until the rest of world is moving ahead as well.”

Exactly! It’s what you would expect. As for:

“Rudd, Wong et al are playing this perfectly.

One step at a time.”

I can only agree. Slowly, slowly … The tar baby will be touched (or already has). The narrative is established. Or whatever words one wants to use.

With coal fired generation in particular, free permits will go straight to the pockets of the shareholders. The EU ETS has shown us that these windfall profits are going to take place in oligopolistic markets like power generation. You can say that the goal is send a long term price signal and be prudent about the risk of disruptions to the grid but that’s just bullshit and scaremongering. Does anyone seriously believe that these companies haven’t been running through these scenarios very very carefully over the past 10 years?

Rudd, wong et al are playing this perfectly.

One step at a time.

Free permits or not, over time those coal plants will either start using CCS or shut down. The free permits won’t make a big difference to that schedule.

The people who will benefit from this are the shareholders in the power generators, not the workers.

So why, for example, should the pockets of the Hong Kong based CLP Group (who own TruEnergy, who owns Yallourn) be lined with Taxpayers money?? This is what the defenders of the scheme will have to justify if they give away free permits.

http://www.theage.com.au/environment/alarm-on-carbon-trading-scheme-20080714-3f3w.html

They need to maintain the value of the generators to do their electricity privatisation thing with any sort of hope of success.

Even without the privatisation, they need to find some way to prop up the jobs. Its one thing to point the finger at private companies who should have known better and invested earlier. Its another thing when you have to point the finger at yourself, well own party anyway.