But is it emo or emu?

Or just a tarmac of ostriches with their collective dickheads up Abbott’s cassock?

Not really, just made that one up.

As a matter of fact, it probably needs to start at about $40/tonne and just go up from there rapidly.

They suggest that the carbon price in 2012-13 could be $42.56/tonne or $48.29/tonne — totally ingoring the fact that the CPRS has a price ceiling, which will prevent the carbon price going above $40/tonne by law.

Are Europeans the only adults in the world?

[Citigroup Elaine] Prior’s analysis is that despite patchy data on emissions, “the financial impact, even if the CPRS is enacted as currently designed, does not appear concerning to investors.”…

Prior notes that most Australian coal mines are little affected by the CPRS, and would face an extra cost of 80c to $1.60 a tonne even if fugitive gas emissions were included

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Oils-rate-of-assistance-pd20091103-XER3F?opendocument&src=rss

Late to the party with old talking points. Go Liberal!

[...]but I think the problem comes from methane being so much more potent than CO2, so it’s a greenhouse booster.

If cattle were stable in number and simply returning carbon from the soil to the atmosphere then the net effect on the system over time would be zero. There’s no more a free lunch in carbon than there is in energy.

Actually, the main problem arises because of the fossil input. One could not raise this many ruminants at this speed without the massive resort to fertilisers and the consequent mass produced feedstock. The ruminants in effect are machines for converting the feedstock for the haber process which makes the fertiliser to raise the corn to feed the cow into CH4 and ultimately CO2.

Per MWh
Thermal Coal $30 to $40
Gas Turbine $40 to $55
Nuclear $40 to $65
Gas Turbine with CCS $55 to $95
Thermal Coal with CCS $55 to $100 (uncertain, little experience)
Wind $65 to $100 (variable wind effect)
Solar Thermal/Biomass $70 to $100
Solar PV $120 to $200

Unless Australia goes nuclear, we can expect electricity prices to increase 2 to 3 fold from today’s costs based on the estimates above.

International Power – which operates the Pelican Point power station and wind farms – has warned that to avoid blackouts governments would have to implement emergency plans to generate electricity.

It said this was because investment in power plants would not meet supply under the planned Federal Government carbon-trading scheme.

In its submission to the Government’s ongoing inquiry into energy policy, International Power argues penalties imposed on coal-fired power plants will cause some to become unprofitable and prematurely close before greener replacements come online.

Well shiiit, if coal and LNG can get compo by emoting, why can’t we too?

“I don’t see why we cannot get a deal before the end of the year, all the issues are well and truly out there,” Heather Ridout, chief executive of the Australian Industry Group (Ai Group), said on Monday in Canberra.

Erm, doesn’t the Liberal Party usually send out its own spokespeople??

One option would have been to tax the hell out of coal, to discourage people and try to drive them into more efficient use and cleaner fuels, as argued by supporters of ETS.

However, the British government did something different. They went straight to the main game and LEGISLATED DIRECTLY FOR AIR QUALITY, which was their real objective at the time. Companies could either figure out how to cost-effectively clean up their flue gases, or they could switch to a cleaner fuel.

From what I read, the transition happened very quickly.

Subsequently, Europe has been in thrall to traditional economic theory, and has gone for an ETS approach. The transition has NOT happened quickly. In fact, from my understanding, they are nowhere near the objectives of the ETS.

Maybe the problem is with the design of the ETS and ours will be better? Fat chance I reckon, since all the biggest polluters have secured themselves exemptions. Same as they did in Europe.

Then again, maybe part of the problem is with the implicit assumption that traditional economic theory always works. We have recent experience (GFC) to indicate that there are serious problems with the underpinning assumptions of classical economic theory, including the one that markets always act rationally.

Surely the Rudd government could do worse than look at a model for changing air quality that actually worked before?

THE Federal Government will hold talks with the coal sector today as it tries to enlist industry support for its emissions trading scheme, the vote on which is less than a month away.

As I understand it, appeasing the coal lobby is the final barrier to getting full support from all business groups (hence Liberal support). The emos have scored an astonishing victory.