Alert commenters on two threads have pointed out the Rudd is expected to announce that the CPRS will be delayed for a year.
Certainly the politics was becoming difficult. During the Brisbane hearing Christine Milne told me she thought that Labor would not try to do a deal with either the Coalition or the minor parties, but say “we tried” and delay the whole thing. She was the most impressive politician there, with daylight second.
One of the witnesses was the guy from ERM Power. He said that the last decision to build a coal-fired power station goes back to 2001. He was pushing gas as an interim technology, saying it’s part of the solution, rather than part of the problem. He spoke of two proposals to build gas-fired power stations, worth $1.8 billion in total. One in NSW and one in Qld. But he couldn’t get the financers on board because of political uncertainty and sovereign risk. He claimed that we would be short of power in 2-3 years.
Witnesses generally complained of the problems of export competitiveness. Witness after witness said that we would be disadvantaged in the export arena because some of our main competitors were not going to be obliged to pay anything at all for emissions. For example, the likes of Brazil and Uruguay in beef, Oman, Qatar, Iran, Indonesia and Malaysia in LPG. None of these countries were covered by Kyoto and China and India have made it crystal clear that they won’t be signing up to binding targets at Copenhagen this December. I don’t think there is much chance of getting them on board until 2020.
But incredibly we were told at the hearings that Treasury modelling, which showed minimum harm to export industries, assumed that the developing countries would not be long in coming on board.
I don’t know whether that is true, but Labor didn’t contest it at the hearings.
Last night I received a copy of a media release from Ron Boswell entitled “Boswell Warns Industry: You Can’t Turn a Sow’s Ear into a Silk Purse”. I get the impression that the Nationals may be prepared to die in a ditch on this one.
On The World Today I’ve just heard news that Rudd is thinking of increasing the targets (25% if other countries come on board), limit the price of carbon to a band between $20 and $40 and fix the problem about voluntary action. It looks as though he might be tilting towards the Greens, but who knows?
It looks as though things could become fluid running up to the next election, although they’ll want to settle the power generation industry down. So they will want to firm up their path forward very soon.
Meanwhile I calculated that according to the Green Buildings Council submission we could shave total emissions by 10% without a CPRS by energy savings in the commercial sector. I’ll try to post on this soon, but Rudd could turn emissions growth around to a downward trend by not doing very mush at all other than a bit of seed money, some regulation and a bit of leadership. He could become a hero. Too easy!
Does anyone have a link to the report the Coalition commissioned from CIE? I’ve only got an AFR article so far.
Elsewhere [dk]: Commentary: Peter Wood, Guy Beres
For the Affirmative:
Erwin Jackson (Climate Institute).
John Quiggin.
Ian Lowe (ACF)
For the Negative:
David Spratt (Climate Code Red).
Anna Rose (Australian Youth Climate Coalition
Darren Lewin-Hill
Harry Clarke
Iain MacGill and Regina Betz
Radio National are running with the story that they expect a delay of a year.
I turned the radio off in disgust.
It had to happen eventually. The ETS was a dog from the beginning; a hangover from Howard. Thankfully we’ll be spared the remaining greenwash
Back to the drawing board.
Stand up the big polluters Kevvie and provide a strong vision beyond CCS or stand aside.
The ABC is reporting that the price will be set at $10 for the first year of the scheme — still not sure whether the scheme will have a price floor after that or not.
Brian,
The CIE report is available here
For govt press release, see below.
Now that the ground is starting to shift, I think the climate movement has to lay down what will be acceptable under a new scheme.
For mine, these are:
. better targets. the Greens have said unconditional targets of 25% of 2000 levels by 2020, and 40% with a global agreement. I’d support that, with the removal of the price floor as per Peter Wood
. tightening up import of international credits. I’d prefer banning them and making international investment additional, but could live with a cap of 20% international permits to meet an emitter’s quota.
. removal of assistance for coal-fired electricity sector. These guys will never be part of the solution and have seen this coming for years.
. unconditional scale down of assistance for EITEs so that free money is eliminated after 5 years, earlier if international agreements are struck
. sort out voluntary abatement, though I think the price floor removal might do this. Have I got this right, Peter?
I’m no fan of the package, even with today’s announcement, but I can still see the value in drawing a line in the sand, even a faint one, as long as it will actually start the process of change.
In the current economic light, a $10/tonne price for 1 year is something I can live with – AS LONG AS investors can see that the game genuinely changes from 2012.
Just received this release from local member (ALP, backbencher). Can’t find it on the net so I’ll reproduce here:
NEW MEASURES FOR THE CARBON POLLUTION REDUCTION SCHEME
The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme will be phased in from 1 July 2011
and a new, ambitious 25 per cent by 2020 target has been put on the
table, as part of a package of new measures announced today by the Rudd
Government.
The package includes:
1. A delay in the start date of the Carbon Pollution Reduction
Scheme of one year, to manage the impacts of the global recession.
To further assist businesses during these difficult economic times:
i. A one year fixed price period will be introduced. Permits will
cost $10 per tonne of carbon in 2011-12, with the transition to full
market trading from 1 July 2012.
ii. A new Global Recession Buffer will be provided as part of the
assistance package for emissions intensive trade exposed industries.
Industries eligible for 60 per cent assistance will receive a 10 per
cent buffer, while industries eligible for 90 per cent assistance will
receive a 5 per cent buffer.
iii. Eligible businesses will receive funding to undertake energy
efficiency measures from 1 July 2009.
2. A commitment to reduce carbon pollution by 25 per cent of 2000
levels by 2020 if the world agrees to an ambitious global deal to
stabilise levels of CO2 equivalent in the atmosphere at 450 parts per
million or less by 2050.
If the world achieves this ambitious agreement, Australia will meet
this 25 per cent target by harnessing the CPRS, the expanded Renewable
Energy Target, and with substantial investment in clean, renewable
energy and energy efficiency and strategic investment in carbon capture
and storage.
Up to five percentage points of the 25 per cent target could be achieved
through Government purchase of international credits, such as avoided
deforestation credits, using CPRS revenue no earlier than 2015.
Should the world achieve this ambitious agreement, the Government would
seek a new election mandate for increased 2050 targets.
3. The establishment of Australian Carbon Trust to allow households
to do their bit by investing directly in reducing Australia’s emissions
and to drive energy efficiency in buildings.
In developing this package, the Government has embraced the views of the
Australian community.
We have listened to calls from the business community for a later, more
gradual start to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and additional
assistance to help manage the impacts of the global recession.
This new commitment follows extensive consultation with environment
advocates on the best way to maximise Australia’s contribution to an
ambitious outcome in international negotiations at Copenhagen this
December.
We have listened to Australian households who have raised concerns that
their individual efforts to reduce emissions had not been adequately
taken into account under the CPRS.
Together this package of measures strengthens our response to climate
change, ensuring Australia plays its part in global efforts to tackle
climate change while managing any impacts on our economy.
We will also continue to work with interested groups on an ongoing basis
to deal with other technical matters as they arise.
The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme legislation will be introduced
when Parliament resumes.
Passage of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme legislation this year -
including these new measures announced today – is squarely in
Australia’s national interest.
It delivers the investment certainty business needs during these
difficult economic times.
And it enables us to advocate for the global agreement we need to
protect future generations of Australians from the most damaging impacts
of climate change.
Keane in today’s Crikey:
Did it ever have control of it beyond a tawdry box ticking exercise?
“Rudd could turn emissions growth around to a downward trend by not doing very mush at all other than a bit of seed money, some regulation and a bit of leadership. He could become a hero. Too easy!”
Yep – lot of easy credit going for the leader who tackles the low hanging fruit. Why the delays on these easy issues?
I can live with the ETS being delayed if that means a higher target – and hopefully a longer period for opponents to absorb some new realities from the evolving US posiiton.
Sorry, ballsd up both my links again. IS there a problem hyperlinking addresses that end with a digit? But no excuse for 2nd one…
CIE report – http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/news/default.asp?action=article&ID=510
Greens demands – http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25425220-601,00.html
[fixed - dk]
I suppose the best that can be said for this ‘change of heart’ is that he might, just might get it right next time round. Or is 25% not enough? I won’t hold my breath on this one.
Hold on – I thought the science was settled? How can the Greens reduce their target from 40% to 25% – where is the science to back that up?
What a balls-up.
Still, part of the problem is that the Greens alone can’t deliver enough Senate votes.
My understanding of what has been announced is that:
1. The scheme will be delayed until July 2011;
2. In 2011-2012 the carbon price will be set at $10/tonne and there will be an unlimited amount of permits;
3. Emissions trading will be begin proper in July 2012 — I don’t know if there will be any price caps or floors after July 2012.
4. There will be “recession buffer” where industries eligible for assistance at the 60% rate “would receive a 10% buffer for a finite period”, while those eligible at the 90% rate “will receive a 5% buffer for finite period”.
5. The 5%-15% target reduction range will be kept unless an agreement consistent with 450ppm CO2-e is agreed to, in which case Australia will agree with a 25% reduction (presumably on 2000 levels).
Rob @10
Yes, but Xenophon has been eminently sensible – see his independent report from the Econ Committee. Fielding is lost, but who knows – maybe a dissenting Liberal???
“Penny Wong’s dreadful handling of key stakeholders”
Indeed.
The problem is that the senior levels of Wong’s department are staffed by ex-Treasury officers. These people are great on technical matters but have no idea how to manage stakeholders. Unlike the program departments, it’s not a skill that you have to learn in the Treasury, where you are taught from a young age that stakeholders are just obstructions that are to ridden roughshod over, as and when required.
This approach works fine in the Treasury but was always going to fail with the CPRS, where a coalition of diverse supporters had to be stitched together and held together; no easy task.
Wong has managed to alienate everybody from Heather Ridout to the environment movement. She thought (or was advised) that the environmental movement and climate scientists would meekly accept targets that look OK in per capita terms. She thought (or was advised) that business would accept the concessions offered and would not take advantage of the current economic conditions to ask for more.
Wong was wrong. She has botched it. Compare with Julia Gillard’s flawless handling of the industrial relations legislation.
Thanks dk for sorting out the links.
Aussie Oskar, under the present proposed CPRS, there is no price floor. There is what Richard Dennis describes as an emissions floor which means that there is no price incentive for greenhouse gas emissions to go below the target set (in terms of overall emissions budget). Richard Dennis and others have been raising the issue that this implies that voluntary measures will not make any difference to the overall target achieved, unless households buy permits and cancel them. Today Rudd announced the creation of a fund that would facilitate households to buy permits and cancel them.
I have been a long-time advocate of a price floor – this would allow emissions to go below the target set by the government. In other words, having a “price floor” addresses the problem of the the “emissions floor”.
I have written more on how a price floor would work here and here. Price floors have also been discussed by Prof Michael Grubb (editor of Climate Policy) here (ht to dk.au).
Yes, thanks dk.au and thanks to AO for the links and the media release @ 4.
From that it seems that they are going ahead with amended legislation immediately in order to give industry certainty and hold open the prospect of a mandate for new 2050 targets if warranted after Copenhagen.
So that seems to indicate that the thing is not really back in the melting pot, but I’m none the wiser as to whether Rudd is heading left or right for political passage in the senate.
I’m at home today, which means lawn mowing looms. Be good!
Peter W @ 15, caught up temporarily in moderation because of the three links rule.
The $10 price fix sounds like they are moving closer to a carbon tax. That would be a good idea as a carbon tax makes much more sense than a trading scheme. However if we are to have a $10 tax on carbon then where are the tax cuts in other areas?
I didn’t vote for ‘em.
So? Lets have a DD election. Rudd would romp it in and the Greens would control the BofP in the Senate.
Interesting, Sam: is it time to re-appraise Arthur Calwell’s infamous Two Wongs don’t make a White”?
Senator Wong getting animated in an interview; I’d like to see that. If she is out of her depth, and Peter Garrett was never allowed to even paddle, time to get Greg Combet or Lindsay Tanner onto this. It’s a shambles. To be fair, it’s also a very difficult portfolio.
BTW, what does Australia now take to Copenhagen??
Brian: I trust your lawn mowing is done without using petroleum fuels? Electric mower re-charged by solar panels? That’s the spirit
I am glad the ETS is being delayed but I don’t want to see it at all. There are much better ways of having secure energy into the future, this includes gas, coal and nuclear power.
Ambi, there are good push mowers around. But you have to do it regularly or you can’t push through it. Turning the front lawn into a vege garden would be preferable, and we might when we are both retired.
Turnbull has been on the airwaves saying that it’s fundamentally flawed, in other words still a crock. I doubt whether he’ll go back on that.
So it’s the Greens or Labor throwing its hands into the air, waiting for Copenhagen and going to the election for a new mandate. I don’t know, but I’d guess the latter.
There is the double dissolution option, but I have no sense as to whether that’s a possibility.
“Brian: I trust your lawn mowing is done without using petroleum fuels? Electric mower re-charged by solar panels? That’s the spirit”
Actually, Ambigulous@20, a picture of Brian and his prototype “no carbon output” mower, can be seen below.
http://i.treehugger.com/images/2007/10/24/Bike-Mower-2.jpg
I like it, joe2, but look at those muscles! The man is built like a gorilla!
Rudd has been saying that limiting emissions to 450ppm will save the Great Barrier Reef. A brave call. It probably depends on how long you stay at 450ppm, whether you peak there and come down and what you mean by “save”.
John Quiggin reports on the blast he got from Boswell and links to Boswell and Joyce launching Plimer’s book.
The Greens are not impressed with Rudd’s new tack.
I have commented in detail on the changes to the CPRS legislation here.
Thanks Peter, clear as always.
There were at least three items on PM tonight. I’ll put up links when the transcripts become available later tonight.
The share market jumped 3% which is being attributed to Rudd’s announcement.
Yep, two were ‘green groups’, ACF & WWF (I think) saying it was a good step forward. Talk about suckers! If Copenhagen doesn’t come through we’re stuck with the same old 5%. And this is a step forward! Write these lots off as supporters of climate change action. With spokepeople like this, who needs detractors?
The others were mostly business people, saying either they were happy (Heather ridout. She ought to. She wrote the bloody thing) or big business saying it hadn’t yet gone far enough – Woodside & the Minerals Council.
And the scientific voice? Nowhere to be heard.
Sheesh! If ABC can’t even fly for the flag for the planet, what hope is there!
(Sorry about all the !!!!!)
Well it gives a good idea of when Rudd expects to call the next election. Shortly before he has to commit to a new scheme…
If we don’t get an agreement in Copenhagen, we’re all screwed anyway.
I don’t think the government’s moved nearly far enough in what it’s prepared to do if there’s agreement in Copenhagen.
Correction: if we don’t get agreement in Copenhagen (or in the next couple of years) I think geoengineering, probably of the nastier stratosphere-seeding kind, is inevitable.
I think that’s really, really bad. The alternative is worse.
Brian: yes, I used push mowers decades ago, as did many Aussies in the 50s and 60s. We were all built like gorillas. The sheilas loved our muscles, our bronzed muscled torsos. The sheilas who mowed were even more impressive than us.
Robert, I agree generally speaking.
China flat out won’t sign up to quantitative targets. They’ve said so and you’d better believe them. India is even less likely to do so. I’d be amazed if Brazil did either. The best China may do is to specify improvements in energy efficiency, which has been going backwards worldwide this century for the first time in 100 years because of the crappy power stations being built by Chindia and others.
Obama is unlikely to be able to ratify an agreement from Copenhagen without the developing countries signing up to quantitative targets, the defection of Specter from the Republican senators notwithstanding. If he accepts the “common but separate responsibilities” schtick (= make up your own targets, or more likely, just say you’re trying) while ignoring the Chinese stated intention to to increase their coal burning by 30% by 2015, then he’s an idiot and not to be taken seriously.
I don’t think he’s an idiot, so it might take a year or two to get it right. Precious time, but better than getting it wrong and being politically committed to that.
Ambi, I think the ladies now prefer their men “well-cut”. I believe he appears in the raw in the film.
I have seen little coverage of Sen Wong’s US visit last week where President Obama called together some 16 countries considered crucial to a consensus on global warming action. I wonder if the report card prompted Rudd’s action?
I’m looking at the carbon trust proposal. Exposes one of the principal weaknesses in the CPRS, actually – the lack of the Reserve Bank style institution that Garnaut proposed in his report.
I’m surprised at the negativity here (and elsewhere among left/green commentators) to this announcement, and more generally to Wong’s performance.
This is a tough, tough portfolio. This risks of going too far in either direction are massive, and the politics are treacherous. I think she’s done a reasonable job of doing what she was directed to do – carving out a middle ground between two untenable positions. The original CPRS proposal didn’t get it quite right, but today’s announcement corrects one of the biggest problems (there are several others, but I won’t go into that now).
Moving the conditional target to 25% and keeping the unconditional at 5% was the right move, in my view. I would be very sad if Copenhagen fails and we are left with 5%; but if Copenhagen fails we will have bigger problems to worry about.
Meanwhile, Turnbull continues his shocking performance. Today was a great opportunity for him but he blew it. He could have spun it as the government listening to reason and moving closer to the opposition’s position, and that he was prepared to consider passing it if the government would listen to them on making further amendments. He would have had a big challenge on his hands to bring the coalition along with him (particularly the Nationals), but it would have earned him a lot of respect and raised his public standing considerably. Instead, he went for cheap political points and obstructionism, avoiding internal difficulties and adding precisely nothing to the debate.
So on the politics of this, Labor’s not doing too badly. I give them a B+. The policy performance is not so impressive, but passable. B- from me.
Probably Pablo – watch this space. The UK has signed up to far deeper cuts already. Australia may yet get Shanghaied far ahead of where anyone thought cuts could go.
Good to see the ACTU talking up “one million green jobs” today. That may be over the top – but its got to be the message, cos its basically true: in a net sense, environmetal action will create far more employment than it chops. This is the key lie that has to be undermined in public debate.
Fact is: our industrial elites don’t want action on warming, cos their wages bill will go up, not down.
If anyone saw The 7.30pm Report tonight, it had the ACF and Climate Institute supporting the moves, though they offer more ambitious hopes on their respective websites. I just think it’s a pity that, in seeking consensus, they have chosen to align with a very weak government position, rather than with the Greens, whose position is much closer to what the science says we need to do to solve the problem.
I’ve just (rather belatedly) finished reading Climate Code Red, and the unfortunate capitulation by some of our major climate advocates seems an illustration of the book’s views on the risks of the politics of compromise (my blog has video of two recent climate presentations by David Spratt, one of the authors, and Kelvin Thomson MP).
In the same way that Liberals go after Malcolm Fraser for not pushing through economic reform and leaving it to Hawke and Keating, so too Labor and the left of centre will go Rudd for baulking at climate change. In the same way there was a glimmer of hope surrounding the apology, 2020 etc., so here we’ve had a glimmer of Rudd’s political mortality.
This isn’t to say Rudd’s done for, or even that the next election isn’t up for grabs. It may take years to play out, but here is the flap of the butterfly wings that will bring on the tornado.
Elsewhere: Peter Wood, John Quiggin, Darren Lewin-Hill. Peter Martin usefully posted the relevant press releases, but that’s disappeared. It mentioned a (miniature version of the UK) Carbon Trust.
Also: Guy Beres
Here’s the pipe opener from PM. Rudd says:
Turnbull says it’s a “humiliating back-down”, Truss says it’s still a dog of a scheme, Milne says it leaves us “with huge risk of catastrophic climate change” and Xenephon says it’s “a haircut to a lame duck”.
In other words, business as usual.
In the next segment reporter Emma Griffiths finds support from the ACF, the World Wildlife Fund, the Australian Industry Group and the ACTU. The Minerals Council is not so pleased.
Then Wooside’s CEO Don Voelte says that nothing much has changed.
Then the head of the Australian Climate Exchange tells us he is “shocked and stunned” and that there will be no trading for two years.
Warwick McKibbin tells us that the Government is heading in the right direction, which is of course closer to his scheme. He reckons that the Government and the Opposition are not all that far apart. Close enough that they should be able to sit down and talk.
Funnily enough, there doesn’t seem to be any goodwill.
The 7.30 report has a go also and Kerry interviews Penny.
After all that Lateline gave it a miss, preferring guns, swine flu, neuroplasticity and such.
Brian, that was Friday’s Lateline
Tonight was Andrew Robb followed by Bob Brown. Lateline Business had Don Voelte, and then a business group leader(?), I’d tuned out by then.
Thanks, Sally, I thought it was strange! We sagged after Spooks, where I think the scriptwriters are starting to jerk us around too much. I’m waiting for Adam to shoot Ros after he finds out she’s a traitor! Sorry, back on topic!
Spooks was brilliant, as usual. I was torn between the second last episode EVER of Boston Legal and Lateline.
I decided to give most of Robb a miss but saw Brown.
Another weak target, a price cap, and yet more pork to polluters. Fantastic (sarcasm, for the impaired). When are Australians going to figure out that their polluters are robbing them blind? Every ton of carbon they emit costs money – and if they don’t pay, then the taxpayer has to. How do you feel about subsidising the profits of those polluters? How do you feel about subsidising their shareholders?
In New Zealand – which has a similar problem with gutless, suck-up-to-the-rich politicians weakening and delaying action on climate change – I feel very angry indeed.
The ABC takes ages to update the Lateline web-page – its bloody ridiculous!
The pearler attack on climate change came from Pru Goward and Barnaby on QandA.
Barnaby argued that Climate Change was not happening (as usual) and Pru Goward suggested that modelling is too new a science to be taken seriously. You seriously have to wonder who briefs these clowns before they go on air.
Part of a rich tradition now on QandA, with the week before John Elliot talking about how appalling it was that people eat salad rolls while walking.
These shows are a massive liability for the libs now.
Leftist @ 47,
Yeah but Barnaby has seen info from BlueScope on the job losses this ETS would cause!
LOL! ALP down 5 in Newspoll, but the Libs and Talcum dont get any of it (up 1). Rudd’s PPM unchanged. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/05/2560756.htm
Brian33, what is that? is that some new type of lawn mower?
The modern world is beyond an old geezer like me, BilB. If it is he makes a lot of money out of whatever it is that he does!
Brian “Funnily enough, there doesn’t seem to be any goodwill.”
I thought there was goodwill and optimism from Warwick McKibbin.
Agree with Brett Robertson about the Viscount Turnbull’s inability to accept a free kick. “The Govmint’s stolen our policy!” used to be stock-in-trade for pollies. The Viscount might have phrased it more elegantly, but he missed a golden opportunity. How many of these moments will the Govmint bestow upon him, the ungrateful bounder?
BilB: that’s Brian riding his latest human-powered lawn mower. Carbon negative. Calorie-munching. Win-win. Available in other sizes (and colours) for blokes not quite “built like gorillas”.
No, Ambi, don’t confuse things. Joe2 has a pic of me @ 23. But what the ladies really like these days apparently is at 33.
Warwick McKibbin was given a bad time by taking a different line to that taken by Garnaut and other prominent economists, and joined the dark side by going on Howard’s Shergold Committee. But he might end up having the last laugh.
Anna Rose at Crikey’s Rooted blog (full disclosure: I advise the Youth Climate Coalition)
The argument about “competitiveness” is silly in a floating dollar environment. The whole point of floating your dollar is that at an economy wide level it makes the notion of “competitiveness” meaningless – your dollar will just adjust to the economy, rather than the other way around.
.
So if your ETS makes your coal industry “uncompetitive” it ipso facto makes all other industries more “competitive”. That sort of inbuilt compensatory mechanism is the thing markets are very, very good at. It’s the reason why it is perfectly possible to have our cake (a high material standard of living) – and eat it (reduce carbon emissions) too – both the industry shills and the deep greens are quite mistaken here.
.
But the free rider problem is too severe. Too many countries think like us: “Our contribution is too insignificant to justify even the small sacrifice carbon reduction entails. So we won’t do it unless absolutely everyone else does”. Pretexts for shilly-shallying will of course vary from country to country (“AGW is a statist conspiracy – who ya gonna believe, us or your own lying eyes?” is still popular in some parts). But rest assured that there’ll be no lack of excuses.
Enjoy the beaches and the skiing while you can folks – they aint gonna be around long.
Sorry Brian. On this PC the post numbers don’t show. If Aussie ladies like wolverines I’m an ape’s aunt. Which I’m not.
“post numbers don’t show’. A considerable disability
Thanks dd, that’s useful.
I’ve come to the conlusion that Rudd et al are just as “sceptical” about climate change science as Joyce et al. They clearly do not believe the reports they read.
A bit harsh, I think, josh, but perhaps very ruthless politicians.
According to the AFR Rudd, Swan and Wong determined the strategy some weeks ago to outflank Malcolm, then Wong went about approaching certain industry and environmental groups to fine up the detail and get them onside.
As a result Turnbull has been separated from some of his natural constituency in business, the people who write the cheques for his party, who want it all settled, and on a bipartisan basis.
Well, Rudd has really flubbed out on climate change. No different from what John Howard would have delivered. Fancy playing politics and trying to wedge Turnbull. It was all Wong wanted to talk about, and Rudd too for that matter.
Rudd’s politicisation of climate change and total inability to reduce emissions indicates that politics in its current form won’t address climate change.
So what can we do about this? There has to be a better more effective way.
Degrees Of Denial.
I went over the 4 deg C temp rise projection map yesterday with a customer who is an electronic engineer with strong China connections, and went through the list of all of the major silicon wafer facilities around the world and their vulnerability. First up the degree of potential devastation is mind blowing.
It is not until you start to think about the possible transition process from the world that we know to the world that might be, that you see the full horror of the future. This is a 100 year process (perhaps) but that is not a very long time when you are looking at the potential degree of change. If whole countries may be driven to relocate, think about the turmoil that is likely to occur in that process and the politics that will come into play. Australia has for the last 10 years (1 tenth of the transition time) been fending off refugees with sharp sticks, while at the same time doing everything possible to frustrate action to prevent the now almost inevitable future. So if most of Australia were to need to packup and move to a more hospitable location what would be the reception?
And what will the fouture globla demographic look like? With Russia, Northern Europe, UK, Canada and Alaska being the future northern hemisphere (largely), what is that going to be like with all of the middle east pressing their populations and culture into the heartland of substantial enemies. Demographic oil and water.
This is the last thing that 99% of people want to believe to be possible. So how many levels of perceived realities are there? From total belief in a future glacial world, through flat denial, to open minded, past science tolerant, towards full acceptance, and resigned to the inevitable holocaust ahead.
Equally important is the influence on the final outcome that the weight of each of these positions will have. The absolute worst case is Bush Howard and Ruddian style performance drag which will inevitable lead to totally inadequate preparation from a strategic assets placement point of view. As well as poor political harmony as our nation takes on a refuge seeking demeanour. Make no mistake this is all possible and the onset can be very rapid. It was just a few years ago that the city of Golbourne was facing abandonment as their dam water reduced to near zero. The worst kind of clamity is one that occurs over a number of years, rather than tsunami style instantaneous, as resources are stretched and depleted over time with eventually no chance of renewal. If this process happens on a global scale then, as against a one country drought, then the world’s resouces will be consumed coping with a progressively deteriorating global humanitarian calamity rather than an orderly relocation of strategic assets. And when you think about it the final outcome will be very Star Wars-ish with 2 key continental cultures with a very polarised political makeup. I think that the Iraq war will, at the end of this century, be seen as a kindergarten toddler tiff by comparison to what will happen throughout the century.
Three views on the revised ETS:
Erwin Jackson (Climate Institute) states the case for the affirmative.
John Quiggin agrees.
David Spratt (Climate Code Red) cordially disagrees.
Reading the hysteria (61) here is like watching a self-cutter going at it.
NASA report on Abrupt Climate Change Scenario This report is also on several .mil servers.
From 2008 – National Intelligence Assessment on the National Security Implications of Global Climate Change to 2030
and
Global Climate Change: National Security Implications
You’re quite right Razor it is hysterical at 61, and all based on assumption heaped on assumption. But it is nothing like the hysteria that you will hear in 15 years time should the process of heating and drying continue as projected, and all of the opportunities to act decisively have been squandered.
Should the process turn in the other direction and a mini ice age begins, I will happilly take the ridicule for being alarmist. And should that happen after Australia has turned away from coal driven energy to solar energy, I will feel perfectly happy about that as well, happy in the knowledge that this is a better way of obtaining energy, and Australia will have more coal for export over a longer period of time.
But for the time being colour me red and flustered!!
David Spratt’s post is now also at Brave New Climate.
Bilb – must be nice to be so smug as you bask in your social conscience aura while proposing to make thousands unemployed, reduce our international competitiveness, and move emmissions overseas for absolutely no likely impact on global climate (if you actually believe that we can effect it anyway).
Have you ever risked your own capital and created a job for anyone?
That is a dumb comment Razor. Our governments have shifted nearly every manufacturing job overseas over the years in the name “supporting the fight against communism” or “free trade” or “globalisation”. The Howard government kicked off the process of shifting farming jobs over seas with its determined blocking of any global warming prevention action and its massive missmanagement of the Murray Darling system. The West Australian Labour Government has equally mismanaged the Ord River area. Australia missmanaged its handling of the health system and has sent huge numbers of health professionals overseas. The Howard government missmanaged the Australian R$D environment and sent many of our top scientists overseas.
Sending jobs and skills overseas is what Australia does best. If protecting our environment cost some jobs I would make no apology for that, but all evidence to the contrary. Protecting our environemnt will create jobs, better jobs, and improve our well being. If you think that the contrary is true you will have to back your belief up with some quantitative evaluation, not slogans.
One thing which must be borne in mind in trying to understand the politics of this issue is that the ALP has never, collectively, had a coherent and unified position on environmental policy in general or on the political salience of environmental issues.
There are undoubtedly some individual ALP figures who have a strong understanding of and commitment to the sustainability agenda, who understand that the public thinks environmental issues are important and understand why this is so, or who understand all of these things. Geoff Gallop, Rod Welford, Bob Carr, Jim Soorley, Joan Kirner, Lindsay Tanner, Graham Richardson (in his way), Peter Beattie (in his way) all spring to mind. When their counsels have prevailed Labor has made good environmental policy and reaped a political reward for so doing.
Then there are others who are dismissive of environmental issues and deeply hostile to environmentalists. They need not be named, but suffice it to say that they are not without influence.
Finally, there is perhaps the most numerous group of all (at least at the parliamentarian and cadre level), namely those for whom neither the sustainability agenda nor opposition to it is a central concern or a major motive for their being involved in politics. Such people are generally by no means hostile to the sustainability agenda, if anything they are sympathetic to it in an untutored kind of way, but when it looms as large as it does in the current debate about the CPRS, it does so for these people as a confusing and somewhat frustrating complicating factor snarling their more conventional social, economic and industrial policy concerns. They struggle to “get” why the sustainability agenda should be a central ccncern for Labor governments, they struggle to “get” why so many voters get so transported by environmental issues, and they struggle to “get” why the traditional Labor political “balance” fix of giving a bit to both sides of a policy argument is inadequate, both in policy terms and politically, when it comes to climate policy. I would contend that Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard, Penny Wong and Greg Combet all fall into this category, as I think does Anna Bligh.
The shorter version of what I have just written is that if the Rudd government has looked all over the ship on the climate change issue, this is probably because it really is all over the ship on the issue.
I should add that I make my comment at #69 as someone who was saying publicly in 2007 that I thought the Federal ALP was handling the politics of the climate change issue very well coming into the 2007 election, even if the policy was not above criticism. I would still maintain that, at that time, that was the case. Nonetheless, it is clearly not the case now.
The other factor that may be at work is a certain reading of the 2004 Tasmanian forests issue, namely that it was the actual policy which hurt Labor. This is wrong: what hurt Labor on that issue was not the policy but its mishandling of the timing and the tactics, and more generally Labor’s complete disorganisation and disunity on the issue throughout 2004, as reported in the Latham Diaries, which is a manifestation of the sort of systemic problems for Labor which I was pointing to at #69.
Signora Berlusconi will divorce her husband, President Berlusconi.
She is tired of his womanising. The last straw? He was “cavorting with a minor”*
She should worry! Over here we have GROUPS of Ministers consorting with miners.
* 18-year-old girl
I’ve just been talking with a New Zealand distributor of my product, in Christchurch. The other week a group hired a crane and hung a small boat from the hook way up in the air, in the middle of Christchurch, to show where the water level is projected to be at the turn of this century.
I’m not the only hysterical alarmist/realist in the hemisphere.
Harry Clarke also for the negative:
There is a lot of cranky dissatisfaction, here and elsewhere, from people happy to call the government’s policies inadequate, a cop-out, etc. But in general I have no sense of what people want instead. So I have tried to imagine what sort of policy those who are dissatisfied actually want. Would it be something like:
Australia commits to a phase-out of coal-based power generation
Australia commits to a phase-out of coal exports
Australia commits to a goal of carbon-neutrality, and the drawdown of at least as much atmospheric carbon as it has added to the atmosphere historically
Australia does all this unconditionally, and lobbies for the rest of the world to do comparable things
Is this what people would like to see? Is there anyone disappointed with the government who would nonetheless see this program as fanatical or as economically damaging? If so, where do you draw the line?
Paul, that’s an excellent comment that deserves to be turned into a post.
Mitchell, what I’d personally like:
* A CPRS targets akin to what the Greens are proposing, and a very considerable tightening up of the rules on CDM permits to deal with the additionality problems. Yes, it will hurt in the short term. Tough.
* Setting up a plan with the other developed countries involving big carrots and big sticks to get the big developing countries to sign up to binding emissions targets. Yes, this will probably result in more hurt to us.
* Stop bribing big polluters – though this is far less of a priority for me than for a lot of other LP’ers.
* Start a crash program to research geoengineering, because we’re probably going to need it anyway.
* (Getting into pipedream territory) abandon opposition to nukes, join international consortia to develop fourth generation reactor tech.
Michelle, that’s more than I’d dare ask for because I think it would be very hard to actually do, regardless of political will. Reversing our historical carbon emissions is tricky, i can’t think of a plausible mechanism for doing it that works in much less time than the original creation of the fossil fuels.
So, my personal wish list goes more like this:
* stop or greatly reduce subsidies to the fossil fuel miners and consumers.
* Make the residual subsidies transition ones and limit them to one per customer (rather than the revolving door ones common in the timber industry)
* transfer all or most of the subsidies into renewable energy generation and consumption thereof.
* make most of the stimulus “green stimulus” instead of brown – FFS, subsidising new motorways while cutting rail funding is just nuts. We could easily use a few gigawatts of renewable power and if the govt can build the Snowy power scheme why not more renewable projects?
* Guarantee to tax carbon going in and out if other people don’t. If that makes the WTO unhappy, bank the stuff. Currently we seem to be operating on the assumption that coal will soon be impossible to export so we’d best get as much out the door while we can. I don’t believe coal will drop in value over the longer term, so sitting on it makes sense.
* go to Copenhagen on the basis that the science keeps getting more pessimistic, so the current best guess for reduction targets is the minimum Australia will implement and if other people want to renege Australia will treat them like the bad actors they are (see carbon taxes above).
* run through the planning apparatus and point everyone very firmly at a low carbon future. Start planning today for the 2 tonnes per person per year target and work out how Australia can get there and what we’ll need to live decently in that scenario. Stuff that must be built… start building it. Not a Communist “five year plan” but a Roosevelt “we need a decent motorway system” style where you work out what infrastructure is needed and how to build it, then fund the plan.
I trust Rudd to phrase this much more politely than I am.
I can see how this will disrupt the Australian way of life. But I can also see that said AWOL is going to get disrupted anyway, and by doing this ASAP we stand to profit from it rather than getting smacked around by it. If Australia had kept at the PV research rather than pushing researchers out and playing silly buggers with funding we’d now have a profitable export industry instead of buying German and Chinese panels. That pattern is going to repeat unless we stop causing it. Look at the “oops, we owe you $500 million US dollars” that the CSIRO is currently on the winning end of from wireless internet people. Doesn’t that seem like a much better approach than “go do that in China” with the last solar PV startup?
moz: Even if we’d throw massive amounts of dough at keeping PV researchers in the country, they wouldn’t be manufacturing here.
Their suppliers and major markets would inevitably be in the northern hemisphere. No financier would take you seriously if your business plan involved setting up a factory in a high-cost country like Australia, when you were importing most of your raw ingredients from the northern hemisphere and exporting most of the finished products there.
The energy sector is a pretty small part of the economy. We don’t have to be major players, as long as we somehow earn enough to pay for clean tech, it doesn’t really matter if we make it ourselves or buy it from other people.
“when you were importing most of your raw ingredients from the northern hemisphere and exporting most of the finished products there.”
I might be simplifying the whole process but isn’t the critical component of PV silicon? And isn’t silicon quite plentiful and sand? And isn’t Australia a sandy hole?
I’d second Robert’s comment about Paul’s comments @ 69 and 70.
Mitchell, it could be that the population in general is quite happy with what Rudd has come up with.
As for myself, tentatively:
1. Embrace a green buildings and energy saving program. This would include new national building standards and regulations, a 10 year retrospective program of greening existing commercial buildings and a 20 year program of greening dwellings.
2. Embark on a program of changing the power grid to zero emissions over 20 years. Not sure of the best way to do this, but funds might have to be put into new transmission infrastructure. Perhaps we could start by commissioning a new capacity, say 2-4% of existing total, specifying that a certain percentage needs to be renewable. But pretty soon you’d want to be commissioning 5% of total capacity required each year entirely in renewable form.
3. Needless to say there would have to be a decommissioning program, starting with the dirtiest.
4. On cars, specify progressively lower and lower emissions standards for all new cars.
5. Investigate the possibility of converting existing conventional cars to plug-in hybrids. If not that a crash conversion to gas. Vary the registration fee according to a greenhouse rating.
6. Prefer rail to road in new land transport infrastructure.
7. Investigate and implement programs for other greenhouse gases, with priority attention given to the issue of methane and livestock, which Barry Brook reckons is a humungous problem. See also here.
8. Research drawing down atmospheric CO2 with a view to removing by 2050 the remaining airborne fraction of all that we’ve historically emitted.
Not sure how to finance all that, but there may need to be a general carbon tax with funds then applied in R&D, development projects, infrastructure and subsidies. I do lean to a carbon tax rather than an ETS because I think we collectively need to decide where we are going and then go there.
That’s from one tired head, late at night.
Mitchel,
Alternative energy solutions are solidly available. All of Australia’s energy can come from renewable sources. It is meaningless to say “phase out coal useage” if there is nothing IN PLACE to replace coal power with. Having said that the government should:
Commit to build at the maximum paractical pace renewable energy infrastructure with a target complete replacement date of 2035.
This should be funded with a 3.2 cents per KwHr levy on the retail price of electricity.
Progressively shut down coal power facilities as their use becomes redundant.
Facilitate the introduction of electric vehicles at the maximum rate.
There should be a national review of building designs, techniques, methods, materials, and suitability in the projected future climate. This should then provide guidelines for future building developments.
There should be a national study of farming for the future with a strategic assets focus. A programme to enable farmers to sell at nominal price their property back to the crown where the land is deemed to be unfarmable should be established with a 50 year access timetable.
Establish a Research and Development augmantation and funding programme for all technologies and sciences related to global warming, its effects and remedies.
Of others’ dream schemes, they’re clearly a lot more command-and-control; it may be to the point where that is necessary.
The redirection of funding away from road to rail and the point about non-CO2 greenhouse gases like methane are ones that I’d add to my personal list.
BilB: how did you arrive at a 3.2c/ kw.hr levy?
Danny,
It is 20% of the top retail price for electricity, and is $5 per week for a family of 4. Since I proposed that figure in an earlier LP thread most power retailers have signalled a price increase of (surprise surprise) 20% to cover the cost of the introduction of the CPRS.
In this proposal most of the collections of the levy are assigned to the building of renewable power generation facilities over the next 30 years, along with the high voltage direct current power lines to connect the expanded grid.
The 3.2 cents per KwHr will return 7 billion dollars per year. As new power facilities come on line they start to contribute tor extending the capital fund. By providing a substantial commitment of capital from the one source new power facilities can be built in the most efficient and cost effective manner.
This levy is a modest cost for most households and over 95% of businesses. Extreme low income households will be compensated with the installation of solar water heating and/or PV solar panels, which will provide an overall budget saving for these families.
I should have added that the renewable energy comes into the grid initially at a higher price than the coal power that is progressively replaced, but as it is proportionally a small part of the total energy mix at the outset it will have a negligable effect on the retail electricity price. Some evaluations suggest that it may in fact reduce the electricity base load price under some circumstances.
http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/5354#more
As the renewable content increases over time all projections indicate renewable energy production costs converging on the coal cost equivalent, and even lower than the coal cost equivalent with a carbon release penalty applied and/or with the added cost CCS.
More:
What is special about this method of energy infrastructure restructuring is that capital is provided to the capital fund “free”. All other renewable endeavours are required to repay capital AND interest, which substantially increases the cost of the electricity generated. By taking the interest component out of the energy production cost equation the renewable price looks very different to all previous cost comparisons. The capital component is still payed in order to accelerate the build rate to satisfy the requirements of Global Warming abatement efforts.
The methane point is a good one – NZ has the problem that roughly half their emissions come from livestock, so dramatic reductions are difficult. But again, there’s only been a tiny amount of research on reducing those and both NZ and OZ have solid track records on selective breeding for the most unlikely things. Unfortunately as things stand it’s very difficult to manage those emissions and there’s no plan to recognise differences between farms. So the incentives are not there – it’s doesn’t matter whether you milk 300 current cows or 300 super-no-methane cows, your emissions liability in unchanged. Perhaps when we have the latter that will shift. The alternative is hat we see a lot more goats milk as people change species to get the benefit. Or alpaca milk for all I know.
moz, I assume that NZ calculate their livestock emissions in the accepted way. Barry Brook’s big point is that methane is usually converted to CO2 equivalence in terms of its effect over 100 years giving a formula of 25 times CO2. In fact, he says, methane is pretty much gone after 20 years. If you calculate the effect over 20 years it is 72 times CO2. So methane from livestock takes carbon out of feed and gives it a huge boost in terms of short term greenhouse effect in the atmosphere.
We haven’t begun to come to terms with this problem, although there is research underway which I think seeks to suppress methane producing bacteria in the gut, bacteria which compete with the animal for nutrition from the feed. Win-win as far as it goes.
Further to my comment @ 79, I’m not all that concerned over Rudd’s changes. If that is what he has to do to get it through parliament then any action is better than nothing. What we really need, however, is a game-changer.
In this sense Obama’s 80% by 2050 is not all that much better than Rudd’s or anyone else’s at the official level. What I’m looking for is zero by 2030 and it’s only 2030 because zero by 2020 is probably beyond reach. Even zero by 2030 will, I think, involve danger of tipping points.
Roger Jones has an idea about a middle path, which I’m hoping he can flesh out a bit so that we can have a look at it and he can get some feedback. His approach doesn’t involve quantitative targets as such, which are very seductive, but processes and a kind of action research approach if I understand it, and there’s a fair chance that I don’t.
Bill McKibbin pointed out the other day that arabic numerals are near universal across languages, so they have that advantage in cross-cultural communication.
Brian and Robert, I’ll work on something over the weekend which will develop my comments about the ALP and also look at where some of the other players are coming from in the politics of this debate.
Thanks, Paul. For those who don’t know Paul is a specialist in Green politics.
Ian Lowe responds to critics at NewMatilda. He says ACF:
-is non-partisan
-does not support Clean Coal and pushes for a moratorium on coal-fired plant + exports
-remains critical of handouts to big polluters
But:
-sees 25% as a step forward
-remains hopeful of a positive outcome in CPH and, like Erwin Jackson, reckons we’re pretty stuffed if we don’t get there
I think the first couple of comments in response to Lowe’s article put forward very clearly the problems with Lowe’s defense.
If the only thing they really support out of the revision is the highly conditional 25% target increase, why did they in effect provide political cover via the Southern Cross Climate Coalition for Rudd for the rest of the debacle Lowe now explicitly states they don’t support?
Nor did he address the serious allegation that he and Henry acted unilaterally on this, without the full consultation & support of the Board etc.
Yes, I think Oz nailed it:
Iain MacGill and Regina Betz for the negative at ABC Online:
I have a post planned for Monday which will inter alia discuss the relationship between the ACF and the ALP, and the ACF’s role in the current politics of the ETS. My one-sentence preview here is that whilst the ACF is not rusted on to the ALP, and Ian Lowe is formally correct to describe ACF as non-partisan, there are nonetheless forces of mutual attraction at work which have been at work for the past 25-30 years, and that whilst on the whole this has had beneficial consequences, there have been occasions when it has not.
The Southern Cross Climate Coalition, as an organisation, represents the kind of collaborative strategy which the ACF has been into since the days of Philip Toyne’s leadership in the 1980s, and is basically a good thing per se, but I’m inclined to the view that the ACF and its partners have erred in this instance.
And here is the view of the Queensland Public Sector Union from their CPRS submission.
Mitch, here are my thoughts:
a much high emissions reduction target. 40% is around the mark I think we should be aiming for, especially given the scale of possible reductions to be had in efficiency projects
* a legislated floor on the price of carbon of at least $20 a tonne which rises by $1 a tonne every year.
* use the revenue for carbon permits to finance a massive ($20 billion +) government clean energy investment program along the lines of Barack Obama’s recently announced plan. No specific technologies should be singled out – whether they be clean coal or solar.
* the introduction of a energy research fund along the lines of the NH+MRC financed at the level of $250-500 million a year
* no free permits to polluting industries.
* a large-scale labour market program to support and re-train workers who lose their jobs in EITE industries, including free TAFE and university courses, 1 year of no-breach Centrelink concessions and tax concessions on redundancy pay-outs.
Ben Eltham’s last three (the price floor should reflects the goal of moving away from fossil fuel based technologies) plus:
* Climate Futures Bill adopted in NSW as a template for other jurisdictions (I’m not convinced by CCS. For one, the nanobes issues hasn’t been dealt with satisfactorily).
* Restrictions on international permit buy-in. (I’m not convinced the CDM EB can be reformed considering how central international offsets are to the scheme. CDM credits remain plagued by additionality problems and attempts to overcome these have only made the whole system more complex, causing delays to projects, further raising barriers to entry)
A stronger target falls out of these approaches.
What are your suggested solutions when India and China and the rest of the developing world htumb their noses at us and continue to emit and emit and emit some more as they take the opportunities we present to them on a platter? Declare War?
You need to update your talking points Razor
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/5288763/China-ready-to-strike-deal-on-global-warming-says-Ed-Miliband.html
good point about the foreign permits DK, although I still believe there should be some incentive for firms to invest in carboin reduction for Australia’s poorer neighbours like PNG. But simply buying up logging permits to allow you to pollute in Australia should not be on.
Razor, my suggested solution is to negotiate. China has shown it is willing to play by international trade rules, for instance with regards to the WTO. There is every reason to expect China would come into a genuinely global emissions reduction effort. Your quip about declaring war makes about as much sense as claiming we are handing them “opportunities” … coal is already killing hundreds of thousands of Chinese citizens a year in air pollution.
Action is what matters and China is creating enough emmissions to replace all of Australia’s emmisions every few years. They want to keep growing and they will.
India has outright said no. What are you going to do about them assuming China isn’t just bullshitting?
With regard to China – Beijing can say what they like. When it comes to business and industry the various provinces do what best suits them – including ignoring the law. I have direct experience from clients who are currently operating in China.
And I hope Miliband is enjoying his overseas junkets because they are going to need to be self funded soon.
Did he fly half way around the world to reduce carbon emmisions?
I love these lefty/greenies – do as I say, not as I do.
You can jam that where the sun don’t shine.
Razor @ 103 – “Did he fly half way around the world to reduce carbon emmisions?”
oh good grief, I’m not particularly well read on these issues…but if I read another comment like this, I’ll puke. Please, give it a rest with the denier cliches…if you have a problem with what is being said here, say so, question it, by all means, but please that particular line has been done to death.
BTW: You do business in China and you don’t think it’s important to meet with people face to face when negotiating issues where trust and cooperation is necessary?
So the ACF “views the shift by the Government from a target of 15 per cent to 25 per cent as a step forward.”
The problem with their rather effuse endorsement of the revised CPRS is that neither 15% nor 25% are targets. They are the maximum reduction levels that Rudd will commit Australia to negotiating to.
The only committed target at present is 5%. The negotiating range the Australian Government endorsed at Bali was 25% to 40%. So our maximum negotiating position is precisely the minumum for Copenhagen, which is quite clearly unacceptable.
And the most recent science indicates we should be reducing emissions by 40% or more by 2020 for a safe climate future.
The revised CPRS is half a step forward (25%) and two steps back (10% emission cap and 1 year delay to start).
The ACF is no longer representing their membership. They are now just playing politics.
Razor, your John Howard impersonations on India and China are rather boring.
What am I personally doing about ‘India’? Working with these people where possible. They’re quite capable and understand the challenge well. (cf. Friedman)
What are you doing Razor? other than trolling here of course
That is pretty cool, dk.au.
The ACF et al got suckered. I suspect they know it too. Judging from the coal industry response, the ‘gains’ were not conditional on a welcoming MR. Why not a MR that said “getting better but still not good enough”? (even if they think the 25% max target overrides every other flaw in the CPRS)
Robert@77: sorry for the late response, but Australia has chosen to push the market for PV to the northern hemisphere. There’s not some voice of god saying “there shall be no PV installations in Australia”. Sure, our domestic market will be a small part of the worldwide market, but I am not convinced that there’s no way to make panels here economically. Especially if we price our environment properly. Mining silicon sand in Northern Queensland, shipping it round the world a few times then buying it back just seems odd. Sorry, “seems like modern economics in a nutshell”. I’m curious to see how much of that trade survives carbon pricing, let alone other environmental regulations.
dk.au, your links on China especially and India are the most positive things I’ve seen in a while.
There’s also this from Anna
But to put things back on topic:
All that emoting comes at a price…