It’s hard to know how seriously the world is taking the “compromise plan” by Australia for the successor to the Kyoto agreement.
In a nutshell, it appears rather than requiring hard emissions targets for developing countries, the proposal would allow developing countries to simply list the actions they intend to take to reduce CO2 emissions; negotiations would then be based around whether those actions make a sufficient contribution to emissions reduction compared to what the developed world is doing.
For what it’s worth, I don’t like the proposal, for a number of reasons:
- It fudges the need to place quantitative limits on global greenhouse gas emissions, whatever their source
- It delays a real global carbon trading market, so that emissions reductions can be made where it’s easiest (which, in a lot of cases, is in developing countries where a whole lot of long-lived infrastructure will be built in the next few decades)
- It potentially discourages innovative approaches to emissions reductions in developing countries.
However, all that said, the proof of the pudding remains entirely within the eating. If the measures taken in the developing world are of the right sort, and substantial enough – for instance, a phase-out of new coal-fired power by 2020 except if CCS is used – and matched by commensurate measures in the developed world, the mechanism is a second-order issue. If the measures are token ones, either the agreement reached will be useless or there will be no agreement at all.
So if this deal convinces China, India, Brazil, and Indonesia, and to a lesser extent the other large developing countries, to sign up and commit to real efforts, great. If the efforts, both by developed and developing countries, remain a joke, debating the mechanism for insufficient emissions reductions is a Titanic case of deckchair-shuffling.
So who’s to decide which is a developed and a developing country? If this were Kyoto all over again then the extremely generous deal to Australia so long as it stopped land clearing might as well have been the pleading of a developing nation.
Hopefully Penny Wong’s eleventh hour ‘compromise’ might get the shove today with a major speech by China’s President Hu. Here’s hoping.
It’s easy enough to see why Australia would put this on the table with its pathetic targets. The ‘compromise’ plan looks like pledge and review, which is as old as climate negotiations themselves.
David Victor’s latest op-ed in Nature makes it clear why this is back on the table.
And Michael Grubb’s critique for the defense of the status quo (old but still relevant)
To appear sometime after the real unicorn trading market.
Tim Flannery spoke up for it on ‘Lateline’ last night. He thought developing countries might be moe open to this.
About a month ago I read David Victor’s article in Aldy and Stavins Architectures for Agreement and thought it was somewhat similar to Australia’s schedules approach. Erwin Jackson has an article on Australia’s proposal here, which is also worth reading.
The question of legal architecture for a post-Kyoto agreement is an interesting one, a difficult one, and an important one. It would be great to have a grand coalition of all countries having collectively rationally; taking on targets to maximise global welfare, and linking their emissions trading schemes into one big one. But that is unlikely to happen soon, and the commitments in terms of targets and financing from developed countries are totally insufficient. So I see some limited multilateral linking of permit being more feasible.
For all countries to take on targets, an equitable approach to allocating them would be required. But I don’t at present see any chance at all of a strong equitable climate agreement getting past the US Senate, which would require 67 out of 100 votes to ratify.
One thing that is attractive about the schedules approach is that they can be tightened reasonably easily. It may be the case that they can be tightened without having to be ratified again by the US Senate.
“Recall that reductions in greenhouse gas emissions on the order of 20-40 percent are needed in the next decade or so to prevent a slide toward uncontrollable global climate chaos, with reductions on the order of 80-95 percent by the leading industrial economies required by mid-century.”
-From MRZine.
How is this possible without a total and complete re-arrangement of the global economy, i.e. the abolition of production based on the profit motive?
Craig Mc @3: “…real unicorn trading market”
I would also offer a full squadron of flying pigs, fuelled and ready for takeoff…
When hannah’s mum reminds me that its my turn to wash the dishes that are sitting next to the sink and I respond “Its on my list and I am actively considering doing it in the near future” for some reason she does not consider that a reasonable response.
dk.au @2, Second your comment about Australia’s “pathetic targets”.
One can only speculate what the Europeans think of the Aussie PM swanning about with US Presidents, talking about their “climate change leadership”. Two of the world’s BIGGEST per capita consumers of energy, and dirty energy at that.
Not least, what would they make of nations with some of the WORST emissions per kWh from coal-fired power stations, rabbitting on about no more new coal-fired power, while digging up coal and flogging it like there is no tomorrow?
Imagine you were a European negotiator, dealing with this sort of hypocrisy?
And why would any developing nation want to saddle themselves with a productivity crippling ETS, when there are simpler ways of keeping their emissions per capita lower than the other hypocrites at the table?
Incredible load of humbug.
Good idea Penny. However, setting action targets rather than emission targets will also make sense for many developed countries including Australia. The key advantages I see are:
1. Countries will be able to work out the best way of fulfilling their action plan instead of being bludgeoned into using complex, expensive emission trading systems.
2. There are a range of specific actions the world has a good chance of agreeing on. Think computer power consumption standards, average fuel consumption of new cars etc. The psychology of getting real action started at Copenhagen is important.
3. It is much easier to determine that real action on power generation etc. has taken place. Trying to measure a countries total emissions will be a source of endless arguments. Particularly given that not all countries will welcome the idea of “emission inspectors” having free movement around their country.
4. It can be set up to make it easy for countries to trade off different actions if conditions change.
5. There is nothing in the basic idea that would prevent countries doing a deal. For example, allowing Australian action promises to actually take place in Indonesia.
For instance, having more kids!
@Elise: …the flip side is that Australia having one of the highest per capita emissions is finally up to bat as it should be! That is to Kevin Rudd and Labors credit than you very much!!!!
John D, I agree that the psychology is important! The free-market liars know this….that is what advertising is all about and they seek to destroy momentum primarily! It is Key: no doubt! THAT IS THE KUNG FU/YIN-YANG OF THE SITUATION!!!
for instance, a phase-out of new coal-fired power by 2020 except if CCS is used
At China’s current rate of adding the equivalent of Australia’s total coal fired electricity production every 6 months or so, that’s time for China alone to ADD twenty two Australia equivalents to the CO2 mix before the phase out.
To me, it isn’t worth even talking about,whatever Rudd does!
Peter @14: All the data I have seen says that CCS is going to cost too much. So to say
may be a cunning way of killing coal powered generation without appearing to say so – guess it depends how fast people think the phase out will be.
ha ha ha ha ha. heh.
Capitalism doesn’t require CO2 to operate. It just needs energy. When the price of carbon runs high enough – and it will – new modes of production and profit will emerge.
My guess is Australia will run about last in terms of that new economy – being a hidebound, economically conservative backwater of old-school thinking – but that needn’t concern us here.
While our leaders fantasise that anyone gives a crap what a no-cred bunch of bozos like us think, and some of the more demented ones delude themselves that we’re somehow at any risk of being at the ‘forefront’ of these debates, the world moves on.
I suspect we’ll see the inevitable global shift to multipolarity, away from the US and its Anglophone hangers-on, over the climate issue. China, continental EU, Brazil and India will set the benchmarks for the new economy.
I’d say we have already witnessed high watermark of Anglo-liberalism. Look ahead 20 years: We will be left behind, flogging coal no-one wants, with all our renewable expertise brain-drained to smarter more innovative folk, now suffering carbon-heavy trade penalties, and realising we were betrayed by a generation of economic simpletons posing as our political leaders.
Here’s hoping anyway. Ive have no faith in Australia’s ability to contribute meaningfully. Im barracking for the rest of the world to show us up for what we are. Second-raters.
China will take the lead in climate change, with India shortly hopping on board, and leave the USA the EU (and Australia) for dead, as old ossified economies lacking leadership and incapable of change.
China will do this because it does not want to agree to any contract drawn up in the west, because it knows that climate change is real and it cannot turn away, and because it wants to show the world, nay shove it in their faces, that with a command economy China can do what the rest of the world seemingly cannot.
grace, I’m not sure I’d put it that way, but certainly China and India are taking tough bargaining positions. No links, but there were a couple of interesting messages coming through on ABC radio this morning. China apparently made their major speech and promised vigorous action that would make a tangible difference. But what they are promising is greater carbon efficiency as their economy grows. This does not amount to a cuts in emissions; rather a slowing of the increase.
What India is offering is yet to be revealed. This morning there was emphasis on the need for action because of another failed monsoon with Indians in urban areas killing each other to access their neighbours water. But the AFR yesterday reported that India was showing interest in buying Victorian brown coal to secure future energy supplies.
I think it would be no bad thing if the deadline for conclusion of the talks were extended for a further 12 months. And if a process of continuous review were put in place so that the world could constantly re-evaluate its position and make adjustments in the light of the latest research findings. The problem with what’s going on at the moment is that it is largely detached from the latest science and a reasonable approach to risk management to such a degree that an appropriate agreement is virtually impossible.
China will take the lead in climate change
What on earth makes you think that Grace? The most that China will commit to will be a nominal “reduction” from their CO2 growth trajectory. If they achieve that “reduction”, their increases over the next decades will still dwarf Australia’s entire output – many times over.
China will take the lead, politically, on climate change. Better? My commment was directed to the ironies involved in a communist country with a command economy being possibly better situated to lead the way towards saving the planet, than western countries with so-called “free” markets and political systems captured by corporate interests. China bit the bullet with its one child policy in response to population pressures decades ago. That could not have happened in the West.
Meanwhile, back in the real world: Deal to double Newcastle’s coal exports
Do you think Joe Tripodi gives a moments thought to climate change?
And from Kohler this morning: The battle of Copenhagen
Feeble indeed. Nothing substantial will be agreed in Copenhagen. This has been obvious for months, years even.
3 nuclear powers with very large populations depend on the weather patterns around the Himalayas for their food supply. Their populations are too large for the rest of the world to feed them if there is a prolonged crop failure.
Logic says that both India and China should be enthusiastic supporters of climate action. The same might be said for countries that might be invaded by desparate Chinese or Indian armies.
We should warn all our governments – citizens will declare ‘state failure’ on the issue of climate change if Copenhagen goes belly up without substantial progress.
Then we start symbolically blockading the most polluting sites in each nation. Take the matter into our own hands, if they cant do it. Someone has to.
Remember the social contract, political leaders? it works like tbis: you guarantee our security, and in return we sign over a portion of our natural liberties to common rule.
Note the implied condition in the contract about the ongoing viability of our human societies, and future generations. You’re in fundamental breach. There’s a revoke clause – its even explicit in the US constitution.
If they cease representing us – and merely represent CO2 emission industries, then we revoke their right to decide for us.
Ssh, Lefty E @ 25. If you keep talking like that, you’ll get locked up as a terr’st.
Peaceful (but immovable) blockades David. Gandhi and salt mines. They’re already happening – and its called responsible global citizenship.
Jeez, its already climate apocalypse in QLD and NSW today. And some f*cking d*ckheads pretending to be our leaders reckon this is a diplomatic game? In which “national interest” is best represented by committing to as little change as possible?
/political and economic system FAIL.
Well said, Lefty E. A crisis of this magnitude demands action.
Imagine an infinite source of clean energy was developed tomorrow. What would growth capitalism do with that? It still has to grow, it still has to consume. Sustainability and growth capitalism are incompatible.
I’m with Lefty E – if only it could happen!
John D @10, Great post, agree all points!
Especially think this is important:
“3. It is much easier to determine that real action on power generation etc. has taken place. Trying to measure a countries total emissions will be a source of endless arguments.”
That argument applies equally to Australia. We can easily determine progress on stationary energy production (read coal-fired power stations, especially brown coal), and on transport fuel emissions. That would already be a good start.
Agree totally with the psychology of getting early real action. In any major change, you need a couple of clear early wins, to build the momentum for further action.
It would be a good start if Infrastructure Australia invested (together with the Victorian state government, and also perhaps private enterprise) in a couple of combined-cycle gas turbine power stations to replace the worst of the aging brown-coal power stations.
Thanks Elise. It may cost very little to retrofit a coal fired station by installing a simple gas turbine with generator and ducting the exhaust to the existing boiler system to give the combined cycle. May cost a lot less than a new combined cycle plus it would add significantly to capacity – which means that you could phase out most of the coal fired capacity without having to convert every power station. The only coal fired left would be those using byproduct coal from metallurgical coal washeries.
Any one out there who could comment on the practicalities?
John D @33: “It may cost very little to retrofit a coal fired station by installing a simple gas turbine with generator and ducting the exhaust to the existing boiler system to give the combined cycle.”
TERRIFIC IDEA !!!
Why not retrofit, if the rest of the gear is in OK (or upgradable) condition?
Has anyone done a feasibility study on it? If not, why not?
I guess we will soon see if Rudd/Wong’s stimulus money is where their mouths are…
If the first retrofit can be done with Federal assistance, as a pilot project, then it would give a great early win, and build momentum for further progress.
They will need to take care to pick a power station which will be a potential star performer, not a dud destined for the scrap-heap. A poor retrofit example won’t help the cause.
Elise: Part of the problem is that there is a logic that says we should be replacing coal fired with power that is clean enough to meet our 2050 emission targets (after allowing that some of our emissions wont be able to be cleaned up as much as power generation.) In practice this means that we are talking about wind or equivalent (Approx. 5% of coal emissions per kWh) Combination gas fired has approx. 40% of coal fired so it doesn’t meet this requirement. (Gas fired might be reduced further by solar thermal augmentation. This may be sufficient to meet the 2050 requirement if molten salt heat storage is added but there are capacity complications if we are starting with the combined cycle.)
However, there is another logic that says that it may make more sense to convert to gas fired now and then replace or clean up gas fired by 2050. The implied assumption is that converting to gas will cost a lot less per tonne CO2 reduction than the cleaner alternatives. Key points:
1. If world emission rates were frozen at the current level we would meet the magic 450 ppm level before 2050 – EMISSIONS BETWEEN NOW AND 2050 ARE IMPORTANT – a low cost way of getting a quick cut of current emissions must be attractive.
2. It is most unlikely that any clean power generators installed now will still be running by 2050 – THEY WILL HAVE TO BE REPLACED ANYWAY.
3. There are a number of promising technologies that may allow us to install much better/cheaper clean power generation in 10 yrs time and/or allow us to make better decisions. Possibilities include kite power, current power, hot rock geothermal, CO2 sequestration, gen4 nuclear and thorium cycle nuclear. Even if none of these proves a goer PV solar will be much much cheaper and wind power more cost effective.
I am trying to put together a post that can pad out the above with a bit of hard data.
John D @35, at a slight tangent, this problem of where to start reminds me of a long-running discussion about household changes, that myself and better half have been having with some good friends.
They believe (or more strictly the man does) in 100% solutions, no half measures, and are always waiting for “better” answers. He is a very smart man, highly qualified, acknowledged gifted researcher (metallurgy, not renewables), intellectually committed to action on climate change.
Better half, by contrast, is not a researcher but a practical operations man. He has however been an enthusiastic supporter of new technology since forever. He bought one of the earliest solar PV panels to install on the roof of his 4WD for going bush, long before you could buy plug-&-play versions. It trickle-charges a pair of deep cycle batteries which drive the fridge-freezer. It was a practical consideration, rather than an early acknowledgement of climate change, in view of the quantity of diesel needed for long trips to remote bush locations.
Better half then designed the electrics, bought an inverter, and wired it all up himself, together with a pop-up frame on air-jacks to get the panels to the correct angle, after parking in the camping spots. You can probably guess, I admire his innovative efforts no end.
Anyway, around end-2007 we both got enthused over doing something personally for climate change. After taking various efficiency measures, installing high star rating appliances, building verandahs to reduce heat loading on the walls, planting trees etc, we signed-up for a grid-connect solar PV system.
Our friends decided that ours was not a complete solution, and no point in similar “half-way measures” with their carbon footprint.
They did a bunch of research and hired an architect to design them a proper sustainable house, to replace their existing one. The projected cost was massive – enough to cause “sticker-shock” and enthusiasm meltdown, especially with demolition cost and long-term temporary accomodation costs on top.
The next 100% answer was to research moving house to something already more sustainably designed. This is also an expensive solution, since you have the cost of selling the old house, buying the new house, and removalists costs, which can cost all-up about 10% of the house value, even if you only move to an equivalent house in the same suburb. Never mind any sustainability premium on the price.
Meanwhile, these last 2 years we have been arguing in vain for an 80/20 type of Pareto Principle – a smaller cost can achieve much of what you seek, without aiming for total perfection.
We have halved our emissions on the first iteration, and are now looking at further improvements. The cost is much less than moving house or rebuilding. It is a planned trajectory towards a more sustainable outcome, rather than an instantaneous 100% final solution.
Our friends implicitly note that we have not achieved a fully-sustainable home, and argue that making similar changes to their home would be a waste of time, as it is not a complete answer. All or nothing. The perfectionism of a blue-blooded researcher.
On a national or global level, a similar approach would lead to lots of interesting research papers, lots of governmental and intergovernmental reviews, lots of talk fests, and no decisions or actions.
Full speed towards the cliff, while debating earnestly whether the brake or the steering wheel is the best 100% answer?
Actually, the power industry is not investing in power infrastructure as a result of uncertainty over this whole matter. (Apart from the usual symbolic wind or smoke and mirror farm).
So as population goes up, the actual buffer between capacity and demand goes down. As that buffer goes down, outages become more serious and widespread. As old plant becomes so decrepit it can’t be held together with duct tape, that buffer goes down even faster.
It also takes at least ten years to go through all the approval hoops, so even if there was some decision today that let investors in the power industry get on with it in any practical way (wind farms and nukilr power aside), you won’t see a single watt come out for ten years.
Rationing by default.
Now just in case you think I am being a little far-fetched here, the scenario above is EXACTLY what has happened in the water industry. No major infrastructure development for twenty or thirty years – during which time population went up by about 25%, and hey presto, instant rationing.
Now the really interesting thing is that under rationing (induced by no infrastructure investment), the water industry has actually reduced consumption, not by spurious per capita measures, but by absolute consumption figures.
The GHG reduction is about 8%
http://www.awa.asn.au/AM/Template.cfm?Section=AWA_Position_Papers&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=11240
The first point is, rationing works – the water experience proves it.
The second point is, that by not investing in infrastructure over twenty years or so, we will get rationing anyway, without economists, scientists, politicians, and other associated rent-seekers having had anything whatever to do with it.
The third point is, that when the public is faced with that rationing, they get the pollies to do all sorts of acrobatics to ‘make it right’ – and sometimes that is not in our interests.
Er, isn’t that what we’ve been doing? Lots of blogging about what we should and shouldn’t be doing as well
Actually, we’ve got the foot flat to the floor on the accelerator! China is madly building new coal-fired power stations, and Australia is throwing money at new coal mines, and coal infrastructure.
John D @35, to more directly answer your post, agree totally with your key points 1 & 2.
Some studies suggest that the tipping point for rapid uncontrollable changes in climate is not 450 ppm but closer to 400 ppm. We are already over 385 ppm:
http://co2now.org/
If you look at the table superimposed on the chart, you can see that the concentration is growing at about 2 ppm/year even with a GFC dampening global activities. Supposing that the tipping point could be 400 ppm, that is less than 14 ppm more than today’s figure, which at 2 ppm/year (assuming that figure doesn’t increase as the GFC fades and Chindia grows) means SEVEN (7) YEARS away from the tipping point.
I guess we had all better pray that the tipping point is further out, because we have buckleys of getting our act together within 7 years?
As such, probably doing anything now would be better than embarking on a 10 year investigation for a potential answer in the future?
Even though gas-fired power is not a 100% solution, gas + renewables can be installed relatively quickly (within the 7 year timeframe) and would reduce emissions considerably. This buys us a bit more time to sort out the 100% solution, and whether some form of CCS is viable.
Not holding my breath on geosequestration (CO2 injection underground) as a form of CCS, but would be willing to wager that green algae might work, to further reduce emissions from gas-fired power stations.
Large forests are known to work, since the carbon is converted to cellulose, if I understand things correctly. The tree-huggers were right after all – how excruciating! If only we had some rainfall we could plant some forests…
John D, before you propose nuclear as a magic bullet, would you please check the timelines and whether it is only a LOCAL solution for SOME countries, or whether it is viable for the world’s billions? People who have studied these things say we will again face a problem of finite supply, quite apart from long lead times which cannot help global emissions avoid the tipping point.
Carbonsink @38: “Er, isn’t that what we’ve been doing?”
By Jove, no flies on you!!!
In a roundabout way, trying to be diplomatic, I was suggesting that in doing 0% while arguing about a 100% solution, we were missing a much easier and cheaper 80% solution.
If there was an easy and cheap 80% solution, we’d be doing it. The Montreal Protocol was easy and cheap, so we did it and it worked.
The closest thing we have to an “easy and cheap” solution is regulated energy efficiency improvements and a lot of new gas-fired power, but that will only deliver 30% cuts at best assuming no economic or population growth (and remember Australia takes gold in population growth! Yay Australia!)
I’m sorry, but fixing climate change is hard and expensive, and probably impossible under our current economic model.
carbonsink:
There, I fixed that for you.
I’m profoundly pessimistic.
Carbonsink @41: “new gas-fired power, but that will only deliver 30% cuts at best…”
In Victoria, I believe that electricity generation produces 77% of their carbon emissions, much of it from brown coal. Brown coal power emits up to 1600 g/kWh, compared with around 400 g/kWh for combined-cycle gas. For these power stations, there is already a 75% reduction by replacing brown coal. Even more, if we complemented it with renewables &/or CCS e.g. from green algae. Some coal-fired power may be able to be retrofitted for gas, as John D has proposed. A retrofit would be much cheaper than a total demolition and reconstruction.
Aussie passenger vehicles currently emit about 226 g/km on average for the total fleet, if I recall correctly. The new EU regulations call for new cars to have a maximum emission level of 130 g/km. If we did the same, then eventually we would have a 42% reduction without resorting to electric cars or public transport. If electric and hybrid cars (especially diesel/electric hybrids) are brought forward, then we could achieve much greater reductions.
Aussie households could easily reduce their power consumption, by installing insulation, improving passive solar design, replacing electric HW systems, and putting solar PV on the roof. The reduction could easily be 50 – 80% for less than the total cost of moving house, and a fraction of the cost of rebuilding.
By all means we can argue about exact percentages, but a great deal can be achieved without a total revolution in life as we know it.
Replacing brown coal with gas in Victoria might achieve larger reductions, but you’re replacing a very dirty fuel with a clean fuel that just happens to be plentiful in Australia. The same couldn’t be done in the US, or Europe, or China, where it really matters. We’d get to “peak gas” quick smart.
I believe the 130g/km requirement is a corporate average. There’s no way a large saloon or 4WD could get under that today, even a diesel-hybrid. The very best small cars are just sneaking under 100g/km today.
Households only produce about 20% of Australia’s CO2 emissions. Forcing the household sector to slash emissions would achieve little, and inflict maximum political pain.
Oh and remember, Australia’s population is going to double by mid-century (can you hear the economists cheering?) so per-capita emissions reductions are double.
Its not gonna happen.
DisasterGrowth capitalism won’t allow it. Its off the cliff for us!Carbonsink @45, you are totally right – “Its off the cliff for us!”
As the mock New York Post paper said – “We’re Screwed”
“Households only produce about 20% of Australia’s CO2 emissions. Forcing the household sector to slash emissions would achieve little, and inflict maximum political pain.”
Agreed. So Aussie households are absolved from action. Similarly, Aussies as a whole only contribute a percent or so of the total global emissions (even though we are seriously bad polluters individually). So Aussies as a whole are absolved from action.
Hey, how good is that? Aussies are off scott free, with a plausible set of excuses for doing nothing except sounding concerned!!!
In fact, everyone who can claim EITHER that their nation’s total contributions are less than the largest, OR that their emissions per capita are less, take your pick, is also absolved from action. Since worst total emissions and worst emissions per capita are mostly different sets of nations, we can ALL globally find a plausible reason why we do not have a primary responsibility to act.
“There’s no way a large saloon or 4WD could get under that today, even a diesel-hybrid. The very best small cars are just sneaking under 100g/km today.”
There is a great new magazine out called “ECO Car” which lists all the cars with low emissions, low fuel consumption etc.
http://www.isubscribe.com.au/title_info.cfm?prodID=28030&catID=17
Check out the Press Release here on the new models from BMW:
http://www.themotorreport.com.au/35382/2010-bmw-1-series-gets-new-engines-and-trim-packages/
The times, they are a changing…
Elise @43: So what should a smart government do before the next election to drive a rapid reduction in emissions? Suggestions:
1. Call for tenders for the conversion of coal fired power to gas. (Will reduce power generation emissions by about 60%=30% of Australian total) To focus the minds of the coal fired power industry:
a. Make sure that they understand that the contracts issued for items 1, 2 and 4 will be large enough to ensure that there will be no need for coal fired beyond 2010. (Apart special exceptions from those treating byproducts from metallurgical coal production?)
b. Make sure that they also understand that the logical way to convert will significantly increase the out put of the power stations that do convert, i.e., only those Putting forward the most competitive tenders WILL HAVE A FUTURE (CONVERSION involves adding a gas turbine with generator ahead of the existing boilers. The power generated in the turbine generator is extra output.)
2. Call for tenders for the supply of clean electricity using methods other than conversion to gas.
3. Introduce regulations to drive down the AVERAGE fuel consumption of new cars. (5 litres/100 km starting Jan 2010 then ramping down to one litre/100km by 2020?) At current registration rates the average for all cars should have dropped by at least 50% – There are plenty of low cost cars on the market consuming less than 5 litres/100 km
4. Call for tenders for the net reduction of net carbon emissions. Tenders for action such as charcoal sequestration, energy savings, cleaner cement etc. might be considered here but the tender should insist on hard figures.
5. DON’T stop existing programs until replacement programs are working properly.
6. Offer guaranteed prices, subsidies etc. to encourage individual action such as roof top power generation.
7. Convince the public and business’s that the action they take to reduce net emissions will lead to reductions that are in addition to the gains made by government action such as that in items 1, 2 etc.
Any other good suggestions.
Any one interested in a low cost way of cutting back on the 10% of domestic power lost to standby may want to have look at this from Gizmag.
John D @47, sounds like a great start!
On item 3, a maximum of 5 L/100 km starting in a few months sounds draconian John D – a target 6 L/100km might be more viable. Totally agree with a ramp-down concept.
Not that I want to water down the initiative, given that we are facing possibly one of the greatest challenges for rapid societal change. It’s just that even the new Camry Hybrid (just started manufacture) will probably struggle to get under the threshhold. There will be serious screaming from the auto industry unions, if Aussie models don’t get the nod.
Check out slide 19, I think in this great slide summary of transport issues by Prof. John Stanley of Sydney Uni with Chris Loader:
http://www.unisa.edu.au/isst/collaboration/workshopsandseminars/seminars/ISST_fliers/Climate_change.pdf
Slides 3 and 4 really show the problem with Aussie emphasis on road transport.
I reckon there is a lot of good info in this set of slides. The graphs are heaps easier to digest than pages of wordage.
Their conclusions include:
- Mandatory targets for fuel efficiency
- Improved public transport and non-car alternatives
- Improved freight efficiency and inter-modal freight hubs
Well no, but there is so much focus in the media on reducing household emissions (the 20%) and so little focus on industry, agriculture etc (the 80%). The low hanging fruit is in the 80%, but the govt has been falling over itself to give industry concessions under the CPRS. Why?
BTW, a 2-door 1 Series Beemer is hardly going to replace the Aussie family Falcodore. Its small, expensive and impractical. A Euro-sourced turbo-diesel shoehorned into a Falcodore might get emissions below 200g/km, likewise for Kim il Carr’s Camry hybrid, but both options would cost several thousand more than today’s petrol engined variants.
My 2005 VW Golf turbo-diesel is just big enough for a family car. It does about 150g/km, which is a more realistic expectation for fleet average CO2 emissions these days.
The Hyundai i30 CRDi (4.1L/100km) is the closest we have to an affordable, low-emissions family car in Australia ATM, although most of the big manufacturers offer diesel engines in their small/mid-sized cars now.
Really? Outside the aforementioned Hyundai i30 there’s not much. There’s the Prius, which is very expensive, a few Euro micro cars (which aren’t cheap), the Civic Hybrid (not cheap) and the Hyundai.
Elise: Keep in mind that I am talking about what to do if we were really serious and trying to drive things down as fast as we can without trashing the economy.
All so note that I am always careful to talk about AVERAGE fuel consumption rather than caps. This means that, if the target is 5 litres/100 km, that you can still register a car consuming more than the target as long as it is offset by cars with below target consumption. (EX: One car 2 litres over might be balanced by two cars each one litre/100km below target.)
The problem with caps is that you will immediately get a rush of people, often quite rightly, claiming special exceptions. The result is either a cap that is so generous or a system as complex as CPRS. Using averages and offset credit trading allows more time to sort out the real problems.
Keep in mind too that new registrations amount to about 8.5% of total cars. It will take time for the supply of large cars drops below the number required to match the number of people that really need large cars.
In my milder moments I usually talk about ramping down to 5 litres/100km by 2015 and one litre/100 by 2020 – However, I agree with you the science makes 450 ppm look really risky – 450 is 50% above the maximum for over 400,000 yrs and the ice core data show CO2 and temperature rising and falling together.
Carbonsink @49: “…hardly going to replace the Aussie family Falcodore”
Hate to break the bad news to you mate, but the Falcodore is a dinosaur. Shortly the only place you will find them will be in car museums.
Have a look at how many people/car are travelling in Aussie cars these days. How old are they? Where are they going? How much metal do they need to lug around to accomplish the task in question?
I suspect you know this answer anyway, since you have a VW Golf turbo-diesel, which I reckon is on an efficient trajectory towards the future. Damn fine cars with good engines. Good on you!
Surely, we do not have to REPLACE the Falcodore, we have to rethink what our objectives are? As you have done already!
John D @51: “I am always careful to talk about AVERAGE fuel consumption rather than caps. This means that, if the target is 5 litres/100 km, that you can still register a car consuming more than the target as long as it is offset by cars with below target consumption.”
Could you please walk us slowly and carefully through how this works in practice?
Say 10 of us go into the car yard, and only one wants a car under 5 L/100 km? The average in this case will be way over the target 5 L/100 km. What mechanism is there to get the rest to change their minds to meet your average?
Carbonsink @44: “Forcing the household sector to slash emissions would achieve little, and inflict maximum political pain.”
Are you speaking from experience of trying it?
It’s not as hard to cut 50% of household emissions as you might think. Actually, relative to the average Aussie household emissions of 16 tonnes CO2/year, it is possible to cut to about 6 tonnes/year without “maximum pain”, which is a cut of over 60%. You could cut 80% or more with a bigger solar PV system, of course.
Nevertheless, totally take your point that the government is trying to turn the Pareto Principle on its head. They are proposing to get Australia’s 80% cut in total emissions from the 20% sector, while giving free passes to the worst sources of emissions.
It’s totally daft. It suggests that either (a) they are really dense, or (b) they are cynical pollies, or (c) all of the above.
Elise: 100% GreenPower, solar on the roof, two late model diesels, high-efficiency appliances throughout the house, planted close to 1000 trees on my property, didn’t fly for three years. Been there, done that. After a while you get fed up when you realise no-one else is doing anything, and the politicians spew the same empty rhetoric year after year.
Carbonsink @55: “Been there, done that. After a while you get fed up when you realise no-one else is doing anything…”
Oh dear! Can I try and cheer you up a bit? Have a look at this graph, and you may see a possible reason for your frustration:
http://www.valuebasedmanagement.net/methods_rogers_innovation_adoption_curve.html
Perhaps you are at the head of the pack in spotting the danger, in with the 2.5% “Innovators”? The rest of us are just slower to catch on. This blogsite probably has a large cohort of “Early Adopters”, who will carry the message forward to the majority. Give it time!
Elise @53: Offset credit trading is away of controlling averages. I know it is used for marine sulphur emission control and, if I understand it correctly, RET uses something like offset trading. For the example we are considering the key points of a formal market system would be:
1. Government sets target.
2. Registration of a new car that has below target gains “offset credits” that can be sold on the market. (Credits might be expressed as litres/100 km.)
3. New cars with above average fuel consumption can only be registered by buying the required credit from someone who has gained credit for registering a below target car.
In practice, almost all new cars are registered by car companies, not buyers. So you wouldn’t get the “5 people at the car yard” scenario. A company like Toyota would probably offset most of its cars internally and only seek to gain or sell credits when their average sales fuel consumption deviated from target. Not sure how complex the market would need to be – It might be as simple as informal trading between car companies with the motor registry keeping tabs of credits and ensuring above target cars were not being registered without the required offset credit.
The price of credits would depend on the demand for above target cars. There are advantages in having the offset credit price public to encourage people to buy fuel efficient cars.
Your John Stanley slide show was interesting. However, many of the actions proposed were optional (like using bikes more) and there is this assumption that public transport will stay more efficient even though commercially available plug in hybrids can reduce fuel consumption by over 90% compared with the Australian car average consumption per km. Using regulation to drive down fuel consumption aggressively removes most of the option and would give much larger savings than John estimated. (Not saying much of what he is suggesting should be pursued.
Perhaps we should also be providing incentives to retrofit plug in hybrid for older cars.
I don’t believe lifestyle changes to mitigate climate change is something that will “catch on” like iPhones and twitter. There was a blip of interest around 2006-2007, but that’s largely faded now as people realise reducing your carbon footprint ain’t fun. The vast majority of people either ignore the issue, or try to put it out of their mind.
Elise, ask yourself this, if an infinite supply of carbon free energy were available tomorrow, what would humanity do with it? I would suggest that freed from the constraints of finding and extracting fossil fuels, our civilisation would expand rapidly, devouring all other natural resources; land, forests, oceans etc.
Unless we can find a way to control our growth, we are destined to consume the earth until it can no longer support us. Unfortunately, our current economic and political system is designed to maintain growth at all costs. Witness the recent financial crisis, and the staggering amounts of money spent to restore growth.
Back to the subject of the post, Cara Bevington has a good post on Australia’s plan here: http://adoptanegotiator.org/?p=2347
dk.au @59, I didn’t really see a good plan on the site link provided. It looked more like a discussion about some discussions about a future discussion in Copenhagen. Aren’t “plans” meant to be a bit more concrete than that?
Incidentally, how does the author (Cara Bevington) justify saying: “It’s essential that Australia continues its work as a global trend setter on climate change…”
In what particular aspect is Australia a global trend setter? Excuse me, but I think Cara has been eating magic mushrooms or some such.
Carbonsink @58: “I don’t believe lifestyle changes to mitigate climate change is something that will “catch on” like iPhones and twitter.”
Agree that the outlook is pretty grim, given the few years left before we hit the tipping point, and given the lack of progress to date.
Being a partial optimist, in my better moments, I hold to the belief that people are reasonably rational (although not totally so). I reckon there is a pattern to behaviour change:
Firstly, most people need to be convinced that a REAL problem exists (not just raving by loonies and social extemists with agenda barrows to push).
Secondly, they need to believe that it will seriously affect them PERSONALLY in some way (not just something affecting someone else in a remote part of the world).
Thirdly, they need to review alternatives and figure out which are the most promising.
Fourthly, they need to see through the pseudo alternatives being proposed by vested interests.
Fifthly, they need a catalyst or fire to the soles of their feet, or fingernails clinging to the cliff-edge, to motivate serious action.
Aussies have taken a long time to get through stage 1, thanks to the Howard government and a few very noisy denialists, aided and abetted by the media.
Aussies then had to be pursuaded of stage 2 that climate change would affect us personally, such that we ought to act in our own interests. Obviously the majority are past this point now, according to polls indicating 2/3 support for action on climate change.
We are still flogging around on stages 3 and 4, which haven’t been satisfactorily settled. A lot of people are still probably hoping that the government, or Copenhagen, or someone else, will solve the problem for them. Not many are yet taking direct action, personally.
Unfortunately, I think it may take some cataclysmic event to get people really fired up. Any suggestions for what that might be???
Anyway, there is a really interesting book on the subject of changing the minds of large groups of people, by Howard Gardner “Changing Minds – The Art and Science of Changing Our Own and Other People’s Minds”, published by Harvard Business School. I think I picked it up in the airport bookshop in Brisbane. Amazing the things you find in the most unlikely places!
Carbon Sink wrote:
The hypothesis is paradoxical. With an infinite supply of carbon-free energy there would be no need to devour other resources. With infinite energy you can have as much water, fertiliser, pesticide as you need anywhere at acceptable cost. With infinite energy you could, for example, desalinate seawater, pump it to the sources of the Darling and revitalise the whole river system, produce unlimited food by producing unlimited fertiliser, run things night and day under lights etc so even deserts could be rendered arable.
Of course, there is no such source. All energy has a cost and harvesting it creates a footprint. That’s why we have to find a way fo reconciling the needs of humanity now and into the future with the principles of sustainability.
Nonsense. Can energy make wood, fish, vegetables? You need other resources for that, being land, ocean, fertilizer etc.
My point is, climate change is only part of our predicament. Even if you completely remove the problem of carbon emissions, capitalism still has to grow to survive, and an economic system that must grow has to hit the wall eventually in a finite world.
Of course you can. With enough energy you can grow forests in deserts, build fish farms and wheat crops on the rooves of buildings and supply the fish and the crops with anything you fancy.
Energy — lots of it — is the key factor.
Elise @53: Then again, it may be a lot simpler to avoid an offset trading market. The simplest approach would be for the motor registry to manage the offset credits, hold registration of above target cars in a queue if there were no offset credits available and sell them for a fixed price per litre when they are available. The price should at least be high enough to make plug in hybrids price competitive for any car consuming more than say two litres/100 km above target. Advantage is certainty and clear incentives to go green.
Carbonsink @58: Perhaps it is worth asking what would happen if advertising disappeared we all could really choose how much we worked? My guess is that the economy would contract and most of us would work less hours. Ask too what would happen if companies actually made more in the long term by producing more durable products or our culture put more value on higher quality/durability instead of quantity?
But what if real purchasing power went up at the same time? How much might be saved, how much into quality/durability and how much into increased raw material consumption? Some of the extra money would go into travel, air conditioning etc but there are limits to both of these, particularly if they are perceived to result in a net loss in quality of life.
The real problem is that, the way we run our economy, politically unacceptable rises in unemployment would occur. We need to find durable ways of sharing the available work if we really see the future of the world demanding a reduction in energy consumption and the use of other limited resources. (And we really need to cut back on population, not just per capita consumption.
John D @ 65,
I doubt its a good idea plugging in rechargeable cars into power supplied predominantly coal fired power stations. Plug in cars are no solution if the power source is coal.
Actually, John M@66, this would still be a substantial improvement, though obviously not as substantial as it would be if the power source were low carbon.
see for example:
And of course, as the footprint of the underlying power sources is reduced, the cars become ‘greener’ without needing to be further modified. We move the problem away from the long lead time and expensive end (the cars) to the short lead time end (the power sources).
Fran,
There is either something wrong with your calculations or my electricity bill.
My bill says 1.688kWh is 1.76 kg greenhouse gas emmission (GGE) (or direct from my bill 1688kWh Usage results in 1.76 tonne GGE.) Does your figure for grid electricity account for the large transmition losses ?? Transmition losses generally make grid electricity one of the least effective energy souces irrespective of the energy source.
Where did your figures come from?
Sorry Fran,
Saw the link. I think someone has bad figures here.
Fran,
The general consensus for coal fired power on numerous articles on the web is >1.000kgCO2e/kWh. 80% of the power in my area is fossil fuel (both gas and coal) 20% renewable. ( I’ve still got way in excess of 1.0)
Unless you have low emmission electrical energy it makes no sense to use electric cars recharged from the grid, they generate more carbon dioxide equivalents by a log way, compared to fossil, fuel carried by the car itself.
John M @66: I am in favour of plug hybrid for three main reasons:
1. There is a strong case for reducing our exposure to oil price shocks even if climate change were not an issue.
2. Unlike pure electric, plug in hybrid does not require special infrastructure and can run without recharges if required. for typical urban travel patterns it can also get over 80% of the gain from going electric with much smaller batteries.
3. I am attracted to technologies that can be introduced now and that can evolve into something more effective. Hybrids will create a market for batteries that is large enough to drive development of lower cost/weight power storage.
A quote from the courier mail Green blog 15/409 following a Mazda electric car announcement is interesting:
Keep in mind that combined cycle gas has about 40% of the emissions from coal. Retrofitting coal fired with gas may be a logical way to achieve the urgent climate action the UN Kevin Rudd been talking about.
Lefty E @ 18
“Capitalism does not require CO2 to operate”
This is false.
(1) Capitalism requires infrastructure. eg food production, buildings, transport
(2) Infrastructure requires the emmision of CO2, eg harvesting, conrete/steel production, base load power
(3) Therefore capitalism requires CO2 to operate.
Pete of Perth
LeftyE’s formulation of the problem was untidy. S/He should have said that while significant net emission of CO2 to the biosphere is entailed by the current configuration of industrial society, that it need not be so.
There are indeed ways to design industrial societies around zero net emissions of CO2-equivalent, assumning one attaches a value to achieving such a goal that exceeds the value of the competing resource claims. One qwould need to devise effective and efficient carbon-sequestration methods and probably design industrial and commercial processes around minimisation of fossil energy use or destruction of marine and terrestrial biota, and reduce to a minimum agricultural emissions, all of which is possible. In that sense, CO2-emission is not essential to industrial society.
Self-evidently, we all emit CO2 in breathing and the more of us there are and the more CO2-emitting activities we demand expressly or otherwise, the more we have to sequester to stay in balance, but it’s not impossible.
Incorrect Pete. Capitalism just needs reliable energy. That presently means high CO2 emissions – but wont one day in the near future. Baseload solar capacity isn’t a mile off.
Capitalism once ran exclusively on steam engines, you know.