There is absolute scientific consensus that replacing all of our coal fired power stations with nuclear ones will achieve a 40% reduction in CO2 emissions.

Heed the science people

Am I to assume they suddenly changed back?

It’s the climate that doesn’t create sudden changes to sea levels and the primary productivity of areas. It’s a bit older than the world currently is, a lot colder than it’s going to get soon.

What is the perfect climate we are aiming for, who decides and who controls the thermostat?

This is a victory for common sense. From this we will grow.

Steve, they weren’t going to close Hazelwood any time soon, in fact the ETS may help it close down more quickly. Had the SEC still been in charge it reputedly would have closed down by now – except a Vic Labor Government in the 90s wouldn’t have had the money or foresight to have done that so it’s all moot.

I wager Greens will get 2 fed lower house seats minimum out of this, plus 2 Senate (one each state guaranteed now) plus a good handful at state level.

I wager 4 lower house seats and agree with the +2 Senate.

Maybe its designed to purge the ALP of its left faction.

They have a left faction in name only. Nothing progressive about the big business logging friendly and coal eating surrender monkey Labor party now.

30 JohnL: Foolhardiness in ignoring the reality of the political and economic climates should not be equated with courage on climate change.

Extreme foolhardiness (criminal negligence acually) in ignoring the reality of science that indicates we are heading for a 550ppm 3+ degrees warming with impacts on the planet and its inhabitants that are unacceptable.

I heard somewhere that Hazelwood was due for closure a while back, but is hanging on for an ETS so that it could get a wad of free permits, then close down and sell off all the permits it no longer needs at a tidy profit.

Quite likely. Anyone remember Garnaut? That’s why he said NO FREE PERMITS. They reward the worst polluters. And they encourge them (like Hazelwood) to RAMP UP EMISSIONS so they get more free permits.

Tim Hollo @37. Is this Kevin Rudd or John Howard?

It’s Kevin Howard or John Rudd. Take your pick.

GB @39 But the fact is, climate change is essentially beyond of our control.

That’s not a fact, that’s bullshit. We can reduce emissions by 40% by 2020, but if we don’t set the target we certainly won’t reach it. We can demonstrate world leadership towards a solution. We can replace dirty coal jobs with clean green ones. We can do it.

The Rudd government and the joke “opposition” won’t do any of this though. So we need to vote parties and independents that will.

And we need a science based independent commission for climate change to form policy based on science to take real action on climate change free from political and industry interference.

There is no point leaving the poachers in charge of the game house.

What was your question?

A non-market mechanism would be, for instance, the government banning certain types of consumer purchases or behaviour (installing incandescent light bulbs, driving hummers…), or even taking ownership of all power generation facilities and explicitly phasing out CO2 intensive generation sources and replacing them with low-CO2 ones.

With a government genuinely committed to getting CO2 down as quickly as possible (which isn’t going to happen in this country for at least another 10 years), we probably could halve our CO2 output within 10 or 15 years. It wouldn’t surprise me to see “emergency measures” considered sometime in the next 20 years, and it will be unfortunate, because it’s bound to be quite disruptive, and relies heavily on government competence.

Even though i would like to see a reduction in emissions from coal stations, I dont see companies going insolvent due to carbon permit price spikes as desirable either.

Allow me to quote the CEEM submission to the Garnaut review:

“The ‘owners of public companies are its shareholders and these have invariably changed markedly over the last decade through investor shareholdings. Some investors have made the judgement over the last decade that climate change was a problem and that effective policy demanded ‘polluter pays’ and changed their portfolio holdings and the prices they are prepared to pay for shares in large emitters accordingly. Presumably some other investors have made the judgement that climate change wasn’t a problem or, worse, taht government would abandon principles of good governance and compensate them, and adjusted their investment strategies accordingly. Paying compensation to large emitters therefore effectively penalizes investors who assumed good governance while rewarding those who took a bet against good governance. This is the worst possible signal to be sending investors.”

Such so-called compensation would have wider governance impacts. If key stakeholders see some particular industries being rewarded for making patently unreasonable claims for compensation, then they are obliged to apply similar pressure. if poor governance prevails, then they must assume that if you’re not at the table in Canberra, you’re probably on the menu. Even more broadly, the transition to a low carbon future will require considerable social consensus and few things are more damaging to this than poor governance rewarding a favoured few. Widespread cynicism and a public unwilling to make sacrifices are a possible outcome.

Prescient stuff

If the price was really volatile a retailer might put up prices and be accused of profiteering if the carbon price/ wholesale price decreased.

Even though i would like to see a reduction in emissions from coal stations, I dont see companies going insolvent due to carbon permit price spikes as desirable either.

I went to a presentation in september (i think), this site covered it with live blogging.

I asked about whether free permits would be able to be on-sold. The answer was yes, and most of the room agreed that they should be able to be. “if the company sells free permits, then they can raise capital to reduce their own emissions… “.

I believe the ETS should be what its there for, not a form of financing. If your gifted a free permit, its up to you to use it. Economic theorists might argue with me, but I’d call it bad form to get free permits, sell them and close down.

I also think that each permit should be paid for, probably purchased at a capped price to allow business certainty. Eg. Hazelwood capped at $10/permit so they can provide price certainty to customers.