Blogging politics, culture, sociology and life from Brisvegas
I haven’t had a chance to look at the amendments The Greens are putting forward to the emissions trading scheme bills. But Ben Eltham has, and his verdict has been published at New Matilda:
As the climate change debate rumbles on towards a possible denouement in Copenhagen, it’s comforting that at least one of Australia’s political parties is taking the issue seriously.
You can read the whole article here.
Please read the comments policy. If you would like an icon beside your comment, please register a Gravatar.
There is a Comments Preview function below the typing box which activates when you start typing.
Larvatus Prodeo is an Australian group blog which discusses politics, sociology, culture, life, religion and science from a left of centre perspective. more»
The problem with the Greens CPRS amendments is that like always, they are simply posturing. The issue isn’t what the CPRS should look like in an ideal world, but who can deliver 8 votes in the Senate to the Government so it can pass a CPRS Bill. The Grees have 6 votes and maybe 7 with Xenophon, but their amendments will not bring one conservative over to vote for the package. So once again we have the Greens playing to their crowd and not actually contributing to a solution for the problem. I don’t understand the CPRS, but it seems to me that the government has the Goldlocks solution with the Greens saying it is too hot and the Conservatives saying it is too cold. I think strategically and tactically, instead of both the Greens & the Conservatives trying to prove how much smarter they are than everyone else on this issue, they should basically let the Government get its CPRS through the Parlaiment and then let the Government be held accountable for the result.
The problem with your reasoning, Steve, is that it posits a policy that exists in and of itself. Policy is only developed to meet (perceived) real world problems, by removing the actual problem from the discussion, and focussing solely on the reaction to it, you are assuming the reaction is both a) rational, and b) predicated primarily on the problem, and not other factors. In this case, I fear both are wrong.
The reason[s] I changed from a lifetime supporter of the ALP to the Greens is encapsulated by the post and the first two comments [thumbs up patrickg].
Rather than posturing and playing personality politics the Greens have looked at the problem and come up with a realistic set of solutions to that problem.
They are the only party in step with a reality that platitudes and rhetoric cannot solve.
“Policy is only developed to meet (perceived) real world problems”, “Greens have looked at the problem and come up with a realistic set of solutions to that problem.” The Greens don’t have policies, they have objectives but they have no way of delivering their objectives. The issue in reality land, is do we get a CPRS or not, the Greens cannot deliver 8 votes so they cannot deliver a CPRS, so they use platitudes, rhetoric and posturing to hide the fact they deliver nothing. A policy is not just what you want, but how you are going to achieve it and the how you are going to implement it. Keep dreaming that somehow the Greens aren’t playing politics like everyone else. The Democrats use to claim that they would keep the bastards honest, the truth was that they were bastards too. One thing about the Greens, they will never let you down because they will never deliver anything.
I appreciate your frustration Steve – I have often felt it myself, and I do emphatically believe that politics is built on compromise, and it’s not something that should be looked down upon.
However, it’s not the Greens that are refusing to compromise, nor (much as it pains me) the Liberals. It’s Labor who are refusing to talk to anyone and ignoring the recommendations from their own review.
I do feel that you present a false dichotomy – one that’s very easy to buy into because of both our two-party system, and the two-party rhetoric we’re accustomed to hearing. The onus is no more on the Greens to pass legislation than it is for Labor to amend it.
The all-or-nothing bombast we hear is nothing more than spin. Nothing has been passed yet, and over and over that any economic costs incurred through good policy are minor – especially when the costs of inaction are so high.
So the debate isn’t “do we get a CPRS or not” – we’ll be getting one no matter what, that much is clear. The debate is – and should be – what is the most efficacious way of addressing problem X (climate change), and how do we implement that. To accuse the Greens of muzzling discussion and compromising is ignoring the far larger offender, Labor, in my opinion.
They want to have their cake and eat it to, giving billions of our dollars away to highlgy profitable industries with little regard for the true cost of their action, whilst lambasting the Liberal party for being Climate Dinosaurs.
CPRS or no, we’ll be paying for actions either way, and I would rather the costs are borne by my backpocket, rather than my backyard, and going into part of the solution, not part of the problem.
Well said, patrickg.
First of all Steve1 even Penny Wong this morning on AM acknowledged that the Greens 22 amendments (and suite of separate stand-alone bills) represents a significant body of real, solid policy work – as Wong said far more work than the Opposition and this from a minor party.
Second the Greens have said over and over, and reiterated again with the release of these amendments and bills, that they are more than happy to negotiate with the government. In fact they have written twice to Wong & Rudd offering to do just that and both times have gone unanswered.
Thirdly, in buying into Labor’s framing of the Senate politics you ignore other possible scenarios, which could include Fielding abstaining in return for other policy carrots, huge political and public pressure being put on Fielding via a government campaign to get him to vote for it, or putting similar pressure on some well-targeted Liberals.
The fact is simply that if Labor believed it’s own rhetoric that Climate Change is a catastrophe that must be avoided at all costs and the Australia economy must be transformed, they would be exploring all possible options to get something workable through the Senate. The reality of what they are doing is speaking that nice rhetoric while settng truly pathetic targets and giving the Coalition every possible opportunity to further weaken an already appalling weak scheme that if part of a global compromise will see us lose the barrier reef (and several billion dollars of revenue and thouands of jobs), the death of the Murray Darling (bye bye food bowl and key agricultural export markets) etc etc.
The Greens are dead serious, and have put up a complete suite of viable alternative policies and legislation. The posturing is all being done by Labor who seem to consider catastrophic climate change acceptable collateral damage to their hell-bent campaign of destroying the Libs via this issue.
I thought I heard some hint from the Greens that there was a NP senator wanting to cross the floor and vote for an amended CPRS as unlikely as that seems to me. But without having read the Greens 22 proposals is there plenty of pork in there for agrarian socialist style offsets that just might, in the wee small hours of a Senate debate find an ear…per chance a disorientated ear distressed enough to evade the whip and wander into history. Nahhhhhhhhhhh
Pablo, you’ll have to dig into the detail of their “Green Carbon” bill.
My initial take is that this is the most rational policy response to climate change produced by any political party in Australia. It’s certainly the most economically orthodox; even the mechanism to deal with voluntary contributions is about is about as clean as you can get.
I would also note that, in some ways, this is a rather politically courageous document from the Greens. They have been far more accepting of a market-based response than a lot of LP commnters!
So Steve1, if this is posturing, it is posturing for genuinely good policy. Would that this occurred more often.
Of course, the legacy of 2004 is that, sadly, none of this matters. The only way that this becomes a basis for negotiation is if a) the Coalition and Labor don’t do a deal, and b) Labor decides not to go for a DD and pass the CPRS unamended in a joint sitting.
The Greens do have a climate vision which, as Robert says, embraces the market. I’d like to see them go harder, faster, but their position is both coherent and credible.
Meanwhile this chilling assessment of Rudd (and Obama) has the ring of truth, if you judge them by their deeds rather than their words:
You all seem to be missing the central point, or ignoring it. The Government can agree to all 22 of the Greens amendments and the CPRS will not get through. I put to you all that the Greens know this and that it suits their agenda for any future election. So Myriad, it is all about the Eighth vote and the question you have to ask is what would the Greens have to jettison to get the extra vote. If they are not willing to give up anything, then they are simply posturing and playing silly political games, which in my view they always do. If they are serious players in our political system, people need to hold them to the same standards as other Parties and politicians and stop pretending they are somehow different. But as I said, they will never let you down because they will never deliver anything.
At first sight, Steve1 may seem to be suggesting that the Greens Senators should emulate Meg Lees and the Democrats over the GST legislation. However that would be an inaccurate comparison, because at least the Democrats managed to negotiate a final form of the GST legislation which was less bad than what was originally proposed. In this case, Steve1 is calling on the Greens, in the name of supposed “relevance”, to be party to negotiating amendments which, because they would have to be supported by at least some Coalition Senators, would in all likelihood result in a final package which would be even weaker than what Labor is proposing.
Paul Norton, I am not suggesting the Greens should do anything, in my view for the Greens to actually do something would be the first. What I am saying is the Government needs 8 votes, the best the Greens can do is deliver 6 + 1. My contention is that the Greens know they can’t deliver the eighth vote and are therefore posturing and presenting amendments that appeal to their suporters, knowing full well they can’t be delivered. I am accusing them of being politically cynical. The question for people on this site is do you want a CPRS now or do you want only a perfect CPRS? As I said, I think strategically and tactically, instead of both the Greens & the Conservatives trying to prove how much smarter they are than everyone else on this issue, they should basically let the Government get its CPRS through the Parlaiment and then let the Government be held accountable for the result. I don’t think we will get a CPRS, I think both the Greens and the Conservatives are rolling the dice on this issue, and both are willing to see how it plays out in a Federal Election.
Steve’s logic a bit hard to fathom What are they supposed to do? Nothing? Christine Milne’s speech to the national Press Club a few months ago was the most coherent on climate change that I have heard for some time. It has a strategy and I like the Greens belief (one I share) that switching the mindset to new green industries will unleash a whole lot of wonderful out of the box thinking on all these issues around renewables. And John Garnaut’s P1 in SMH today higlights the dangers of our wishy washy CPRS as propsoed by Rudd and soon to be neutered by the Libs It is nothing more than bowing down to the big polluters who want to do nithing and get paid for it into the bargain. We should end the subsidies and spend money on new technology. Garnaut’s story shows the Chinese are preparing one of those shifts they famous for. They already powering ahead on solar and other renewable energy sources. They want technology transfers of the kind we produced decades ago on solar but which has now moved offshore. If the Rudd mindset continues we will be having to buy abck our own tehcnology soon. Also it won’t be long before China sets a target that will show us up for being all style and no substance on climate change. The danger signs are there . Rudd wants to think he is a leader he will sonn be a follower and we will be penalised.
Steve1, if you want to argue political tactics, there is a strong case to suggest that a delay of a year or two is a substantially better option than watering down the bill to the point where Fielding or the conservatives will agree to pass the bill.
And if the Greens are trying to get more Greens elected, good luck to them. If the Greens are prepared to take rational, coherent, well thought-out policy positions and this results in more people voting for them, that’s how politics is supposed to work!
I think it depends in part on whether we see Parliament as simply a forum for crunching numbers or whether we also see it as:
* a forum for deliberation and debate which can help to improve the quality of policy debate and ultimately the quality of policy;
* a forum in which government can be held accountable, in this case at the level of being challenged to respond to an alternative policy position which there is good reason to believe is better policy than that being proposed by the government.
Of course if you are an aspiring ALP godfather who has always been in the ALP, who has only ever been in the ALP, and who hates anyone who is not in the ALP, you won’t have much time for such considerations.
My logic is not hard to fathom, I am not suggesting the greens should do nothing, I am saying they will do nothing. Yes Robert Merkel, the greens are trying to get more peopel elected, just as the conservatives, both are playing to their core group and not to the broader community. I think politics is more than winner take all, I think it is engaging with others, and if your your initial premise is wrong then the logic of your argument will take you to a wrong conclusion. Rational thought is you trying to disprove your basic premises, not you assuming you are right and then gathering eveidence to advocate it. My position is that the greens are posturing on the CPRS, and everyone else on this ite, despite their rhetoric and their high dudgeon, seems to agree with me. Thank you.
Steve 1 @ 17 (and earlier), consider the possibility that the Greens may actually be sincere in their stated beliefs, and are suggesting policy on that basis. I know this will be difficult to get your head around after the decades of political games from the two major parties (and space-wasters like Fielding), but just try.
Steve1, with the greatest respect your comments make no sense to me.
As you say, the Greens can only deliver 6 votes. It’s not their fault they don’t have the balance of power. Even if they supported the CPRS as-is, it still would not pass. And they were elected to do exactly what they are doing.
It should also be noted that the amendments put forward ARE a significant compromise from the Greens’ own position (eg. in adopting Garnaut’s principles for EITE compensation). So they are not just posturing for the sake of getting attention.
Could you please explain why you think they should not propose amendments, which is the proper business of Opposition and cross-bench Senators?
I’m not sure how you can describe the Greens party position on an environmental issue as posturing. Environmentalism is kind of their reason for existing.
I’m not a Greens supporter because I don’t like their nimbyism or general opposition to development but I have been suprised by the level to which their climate change policy has embraced mainstream corporate sensibilitys.
Labor supporters just don’t like that the Greens are giving us what others reckoned Rudd was all about back in 2007. Evidence, Experts and Empiricism i’ve heard it described as. So now we get all the hate and fury of a Labor factional brawl unleashed on the Greens for wedging Labor over their greatest moral challenge of our time.
So according to your logic Steve1, the only thing the Greens could do at the moment that would be ‘relevant’ is to propose a scheme that completely abdicates their own policy position and put up the Liberals amendments for them.
righto.
I think your grasp of both the business of public policy creation and tactics is wanting. But then you think that producing a comprehensive set of amendments and an alternative set of bills is ‘doing nothing’. You also apparently don’t grasp that the job of getting the numbers is Labor’s, not the Greens. What the Greens have done is put their ideal position on the table, presenting a clear alternative. It’s for Labor as the government to do the work to see if those amendments and alternative bills offer fodder for acceptable compromises to get the numbers.
The most pithy response I can think of to your rather misguided thinking is one from Barack Obama – “good policy is good politics” – that is what the Greens have delivered here to a tee.
The targets are fine but there are two problems with the greens approach. The first problem is that they, like the opposition, have been sucked into arguing for modifications to CPRS insterad of arguing for something completely different.
The second problem is that they want to argue for big gains but appear reluctant to accept that the best way of acheiving this is to look for ways of minimising the pain. There is too much enthusiasm for punishing big polluters, forcing little old ladies to use bikes and public transport and a lack of empathy for resource workers who they wnt to force from high paying jobs to poorly paid tourist industry jobs.
Any practical system that depends on putting a price on carbon to drive change will inevitably require CPRS style exceptions and compensation to minimize the pain caused by unecessary or unproductive price increases.
They need to realise that there is no point in pushing up prices if the price increase is not going to result in action to reduce emissions. There is no need to push up prices if the same emission outcome can be acheived by regulation. In general, it will be more price effective to encourage investment in clean alternatives by leaving the price of the dirty alternative unchanged, offering sales and price guarantees to potential investors in the clean alternative and ramping up prices as the proportion of clean alternative increases.
The Greens need to put more effort into thinking about how challenging targets can be met with the minimum effect on ordinary people’s quality of life as perceived by these people, not dedicated environmentalists. Perhaps they should also ask themselves what the best way of driving down specific emissions would be if they couldn’t put a prce on carbon” – and then compare their answer with the put a price on carbon answer.
Robert said:
Exactly so … no CPRS at all would be better than locking in this one.
I can accept that the Greens are sincere, but if they are sincere, so are others. I don’t accept they are sincere and everone else are bastards, if others are bastards, so are the greens. Yes environmentalism is the reason for the Greens, but if they are never willing to compromise they can never deliver on the environment. And if they do compromise, they know they will get the Meg Lees treatment. I say they can’t deliver 8 votes on the CPRS, so they can propose the pure solution knowing that it can’t get up. I call that posturing. They have 22 amendments, how many of them are they willing to give up to get a better CPRS. I think there is an opportunity for a reasonable solution, however i think both the Greens and the Conservatives are happy to go to an election appealing to their base.
John D @ 21, the dirty little secret is that effective targets will require significant pain. If not now, then in the future.
Fran, I’m not convinced of that, but I think there’s a quite decent case to be made on the issue.
John, what David said.
And ultimately Steve@23 when policy differences between parties can’t be resolved, that is what is done — we test the matter at the polls. That’s how it works, for good or ill.
There’s nothing unreasonable about that. If the Greens believe that by holding out they can get closer to the policy they think is needed then they are obliged to try. If they caved out of fear or “irrelevance” and failed to do what was needed in their opinion, they would deserve the kind of scorn the Democrats suffered.
I like to illustrate the point made by David #24 and Robert #26 with a metaphor. The world’s current climate situation can be compared to that of a cyclist descending a steep hill at high speed towards an intersection with a major road full of trucks and heavy traffic. Does the cyclist brake so sharply as to be thrown so hard over the forks that they will hit the road hard and be very sore afterwards, but still alive, or do they, for fear of such a fall, try to brake gently even though this will almost certainly see them shoot out in front of the trucks?
But this is the thing, Steve 1, you seem to have this idea the Greens aren’t willing to negotiate, and I don’t know where it’s coming from. They’ve said several times they’re open to negotiations. It is Labor who are refusing to negotiate at all and thus the true villains in your argument.
I like some of the ideas coming out of the Greens ammendments, particularly the role of the PC determining compensation to ensure it is genuine. I still have some problems with the party’s refusal to accept that a policy such as that if adopted would cause significant power supply issues in Victoria. We get 95% of our energy from brown coal and gas and either the state breaks the contract with the Latrobe Valley power supply companies or we ease them out slowly while we develop alternative sources of energy. At the moment we only really have wind projects as a viable alternative and they only provide minimal energy. The Solar Systems project in the North looks like it is in big trouble.
John D, I normally find your comments well worth the read, but your comment @ 21 has got me shaking my head, and to be honest wondering if you’ve actually read the briefing paper or any of the bills the Greens have just released – because if you have I can only wonder at the disparity between what you assert and what is actually written there.
The current numbers in the Senate (plus Fielding’s known position) mean that it is not in eithre the Greens or the ALP’s interest for the government to negotiate with the Greens ATM, so all of the ALP supporters criticising the Greens or Greens supporters criticising the ALP for a failure to negotiate seem to be missing a very large point.
(Of course there are plenty of other reasons why one might want to criticise the positions adopted by one party or the other.)
If the ALP call a double dissolution election it will mean more Greens in the senate because senators will only need half the normal required vote to win a seat. The government don’t want that because it will strain their relationship with the business community if they negotiate with the Greens over an ETS. Therefore they are negotiating with the Liberals because it is an issue the Liberals have little to gain on and the government can get close to their preferred model and avoid dealing with the Greens who clearly want much more action and could increase their popularity at the expense of the government if they were allowed to present a realistic agenda.
patrickg – they don’t have to negotiate with the Government, they have to negotiate with the conservatives. I keep saying they need 8 votes, they don’t have 8 votes, they have 6 + 1. So what are they willing to give up to the conservatives to get the CPRS across the line. I say nothing because politically they can’t affoerd it. Fran Barlow – what i am saying is that both the greens and the conservatives don’t believe this matter can be resolved, are not interested in actually resolving this matter and are happy to go to an election on it. This is why I keep saying the Greens are posturing on the CPRS. And while you are all providing rationalisations for their position, you are also fundementally agreeing with me.
I understand what you mean Steve 1. But – would going to election on climate change be so bad? After all it was a huge platform for the Rudd government, and polls have shown many times over that the public is ready and willing for action.
I think the difference you’re encountering here is that your focus is on passing the CPRS, my focus (and a few others, I wager) is on the best outcome to address the problem. Passing the CPRS as it stands is not necessarily that outcome.
Sure the Greens are ‘posturing’ because the ALP won’t negotiate with them. But they are opsturing because influencing public opinion is their best opportunity for affecting the policy position of the government in their preferred way.
Political parties ‘posture’ all the time. Much of the ALP and the Libs activities over this issue have also been posturing.
Any implications that this means the Greens are ineffective or insincere are unwarranted.
I see the Greens’ proposals as a move away from posturing and towards seriously engaging with the Government on the issue. The previous stance of blanket opposition coupled with the spurious claim that the current CPRS is “worse than doing nothing” was posturing.
It’s true that the current numbers in the Senate rule out successful negotiations between the Greens and the Government except in the event of a highly unlikely floor-crossing by an Opposition member, but the current Senate won’t prevail for much longer. The Greens’ proposals look like an excellent starting point for negotiations when they attain the balance of power.
This attitude to Fielding just doesn’t make sense.There maybe both political and Personal reasons why the Greens don’t like his presence in Parliament,and calling people Hippies,got on my goat a bit,because not all Greens as activists would like that either.I doubt Fielding has any choice at all, in continuing using the word Left and hippies etc.I doubt wether all the possible ways of reducing emissions in Australia across large and small polluting industries,using Australian resources,have been given the fine tooth comb of seeing the possibilities.The Victorian Government wanting to sell coal to India,could be an oppurtunity to get Indian Sciences to take a deeper look.And the remarkable thing about India’s Scientists is probably they are more independent than Australians in terms of reducing or using CO2 emissions.And India has a lot of Alternative Technology know how as it is.The Green’s position isn’t one I would be entirely opposed to I just simply would like to see the use of CO2 become a addition to industries rather than control approachs.And again,have all the organism ,incl.E.Coli under various environmental controls been tested in turning CO2 benign in some way.I heard this morning a burial of a whale was taking place somewhere on the North Coast area of N.S.W. Surely it is plainly obvious that soils breaking down the fats etc of whales is almost an industrial process, that needs investigation!
Patrickg “my focus is on the best outcome to address the problem. Passing the CPRS as it stands is not necessarily that outcome.the current Senate won’t prevail for much longer”. Tim Macknay “The Greens’ proposals look like an excellent starting point for negotiations when they attain the balance of power”.
The greens aren’t serious about getting the CPRS through, they are positioning themselves for a future federal election. Just say it, the greens are posturing.
Martin B – I am not saying the greens are insincere, I am saying they are no more sincere than anyone else. sorry but they not wearing pants.
Steve 1 @ 38 – yes, you are correct, however that doesn’t make what anyone else said wrong. It’s both: everyone postures, however posturing is not insincere if it’s built on good policy. The Frontier Economics report that was embraced by Malcolm was insincere posturing as it’s bad policy and was unlikely to be accepted by the party room.
When the Greens offer an alternative path for passage of legislation in July 2011 or sooner, their “posturing” now serves them well to catch the ear of the government and the public at large.
While the amendments proposed by the Greens are laudable, Steve 1 is right to point out they are irrelevant to what is coming before the Senate.
As he points out continually, the Greens can deliver 6 votes, while Labor needs another 8 votes in the Senate to pass its legislation.
Those who think climate denier Senator Fielding could support the legislation are not facing facts. One of these is that Fielding knows a double dissolution, with a lower quota for a Senate spot, is his best chance of being re-elected.
Nor is Senator Xenophon a likely supporter. He joined the Opposition in commissioning the Frontier Economics report and has come out angrily against Government comments about a black hole in that report.
Myriad at 7 reveals a lack of understanding about the Senate when he thinks that one scenario would be “Fielding abstaining in return for other policy carrots” because this would only tie the vote in the unlikely event that Xenophon voted with the Government. That would still mean the legislation would not pass.
The reality is that is a waste of time for Labor to negotiate with the Greens to get this legislation though the Senate. All compromises (either by Labor or the Greens) would be meaningless.
This reality pervades all the posts by Steve 1 and something Myriad failed to understand at 20 when he told Steve 1: “You also apparently don’t grasp that the job of getting the numbers is Labor’s, not the Greens”.
Steve 1 understands that perfectly well. Those who don’t understand it are those criticising Labor for not negotiating with the Greens on their amendments.
Finally, it’s good to see the enthusiastic support from nuclear power advocates for the amendments proposed by the Greens. I hope it eventually extends to supporting the continued opposition of the Greens to the use of nuclear power in Australia, as expressed by Senator Bob Brown this week.
The posers in this scenario are the Liberal and Labor parties who feign concern over the environment when they’ve always treated the environment as a poor relation to the economy. Hypocrites rule and that’s why the state of Australia’s environment is in a bad way (and rapidly worsening).
The Greens CPRS’ recommendations are policies which the Greens have never relinquished – the polluter pays principle. It would be foolish for anyone to question the wisdom of the Greens’ historical policies on the environment. The chickens have now come home to roost.
And while the more discerning citizens of Australia are debating the pros and cons of the ETS, state governments are on ecological rampage – no more evident than in the state of WA.
Premier Colin Barnett (unaffectionately dubbed “Barney Rubble”) is handing out licences to pollute like paddle pops and the most recent EPA Environmental Impact Assessment he overruled, was in July, which makes a mockery of the Kyoto Protocol.
Conditions of Licences to pollute are often few, rendering the legislated EPA Act unenforceable.
Our Departments of Environment (DOE) and successive governments are captives of the hit and run multinational corporations who continue to desecrate these arid lands with impunity and senior bureaucrats in the DOEs are their rent boys.
Many of the rent boys have jumped camp and are on the payroll of the big polluters and there is no mandate for gaps between appointments. The rent boys are employed to advise on how not to pollute – ahem! These are the not so petty bits we ignore whilst unwittingly seeking futuristic solutions.
Meanwhile Australia’s emissions (carbon and non-carbon hazards) are increasing. But that’s OK because according to the ETS, these emissions can continue since purchasing credits from third world countries will “mitigate” our own, despite the documented evidence that WA is one of the planet’s most threatened ecological hotspots and despite the fact that most of our ecosystems are on life support.
Naturally, the predicted bushfires for this summer, with its massive emissions of CO2 have no respect for geographical boundaries or for humans squabbling over the ETS.
I recently witnessed an interesting caption and it should apply to those who continue manipulating the science on anthropogenic climate change and the eco-vandals who strut our halls of parliament – “Save the planet – kill yourself!”
John L@40
Silly … Most of us are closer to the Greens position on almost everything including of course their ambition to rapidly decarbonise. Once a proper price is put on carbon dioxide emissions with Green support it will strongly support the case for nuclear power, since this is the cheapest way to reduce CO2 emissions at the pace the Greens say they want. Realistically though noparty in parliament currently supports nuclear power, so the opposition of the Greens to nuclear power here is entirely moot. And while some members of the coalition wink at nuclear, they do so only because they know they will be laughed out of court, and thus can posture without being called on it. For them it’s a wedge tactic with no costs at all.
In the meantime, the Greens will live with use of natural gas and a suite of measures which will do a better job than either the coalition or the government on their own would adopt and we can continue to press for nuclear in the mix in the meantime. Luckily, Australia is something of a sideshow.
JohnL,
fyi I’m a she, not he.
Labor has 32 seats Libs-Nats have 37 – so if the Greens voted with the ALP + Xenophon and Fielding abstained it would be a 1 vote majority which I believe would pass (other senate voting boffins feel free to jump in). No-one in their right mind would expect Fielding to support now. What I was in part talking about was just how different the landscape would have looked if the ALP had focussed early on on alternative methods of getting up a serious policy, rather than happily letting the Libs brown their scheme down and grind popular anxiety on climate change down to a dull ache.
re: Xenophon, he’s a weathervane, and has supported the greens as much as he’s supported the coalition and the frontier economic report.
and to be clear, I was responding to Steve1’s clearly pejorative characterisation of the Greens only releasing a huge body of work on the basis of ‘posturing’ and repeated factually incorrect assertion that the Greens weren’t or aren’t interested in negotiating or compromising. This is clearly false.
I would also contend that the picture you’ve painted of senate negotiations is rather devoid of the nuanced reality. The blunt truth is that if the ALP had the serious will and focus on getting credible climate change policy through the senate, several other scenarios were just as viable and worth pursuing as the current morally bankrupt race to the bottom with the coalition.
Now that JohnL has declared me the winner in the previous debate, let me thank Emily for agreeing with one of my earlier points that the greens don’t have policies, because policies need to have a mechanism to be accpted by the majority and then implemented, ( and no 10% of the vote isn’t quite a majority), they have objectives which from Emily’s post she clearly believe the Greens have failed to achieve. The questions I have for Emily is what Multinational brand of Computer is she using, what multinational brand of softeware is she using and what coal fired power station is she drawing energy from to send her post. We are all hypocrites, lets not be so sanctimonious, maybe if Green supporters recognised that others have genuine concerns but may not agree with your approach, then we may be able to progress things further. But then I am a glass half full sort of guy.
There is plenty of righteousness in the Greens and the left in general Steve 1 but there is just as much tripe coming out of Labor mouths about protecting working families when half the time it is more about protecting working corporations despite any sign of productivity. The automotive industry for years and now the short sighted commitment to the coal generators despite some major flaws in ccs. Greens voters get righteous about their own lifestyles, Labor voters speak a lot of waffle about looking after the worker.
well gee Steve1, who made JohnL the umpire, and wtf are you talking about re: Emily saying the Greens don’t have policies, which she says exactly nowhere in her post?
It’s fascinating to watch you define terms to suit yourself, such as policy, which apparently is now defined by a percentage majority – which is of course completely untrue.
the rest of your last post has all the hallmarks and sophistication of pro-forestry debaters who solemnly declare ‘greens use paper…’! In terms of sanctimoniousness, my friend look to your nearest mirror.
Fran Barlow at 44: There are many experts who question, if not contradict, your view about the economics of nuclear power.
Some examples:
1. In a presentation at the 2009 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace International Non-Proliferation Conference, held in Washington on 6 April this year, Robert Rosner, director of the Argonne National Laboratory, had this to say: “Nuclear power is unlikely to play a critical role in limiting CO2 equivalent concentrations in the atmosphere until mid-century at the earliest…” (I take that to mean 2050).
One of the three areas of research of the Argonne National Laboratory, a U.S. Department of Energy Laboratory, is to develop “advanced reactor and fuel cycle systems – including fast reactor and fuel cycle technologies, advanced modelling and simulation methods and innovative nuclear energy systems – to enable the safe and sustainable generation of nuclear energy”.
2. In its 23 June 2009 report “New Nuclear Generation: Ratings Pressure Increasing”, Moody’s Global Research Credit said: “…Moody’s is considering taking a more negative view for those issuers seeking to build new nuclear power plants. Rationale is premised on a material increase in business and operating risk …”
3. A CRS (Congressional Research Service) Report to Congress on “Nuclear Power: Outlook for New U.S. Reactors” (Updated March 9, 2007). Prepared by Larry Parker and Mark Holt, Specialists in Energy Policy Resources, Science and Industry Division. On page 12, the report says: “Because it is generally believed that Wall Street continues to view new commercial reactors as financially risky, the availability of federal loan guarantees could be a key element in attracting funding for such projects and reducing financing costs.”
However, the report goes on to say: “Without the production tax credit contained in the 2005 Energy Policy Act, a nuclear facility is not competitive with either coal-fired or natural gas-fire facilities under base case assumptions. Based on the assumptions above, CSR estimates that the break-even point for nuclear power capital costs versus coal-fired facilities initiated in 2015 is about $1,370 per kilowatt (kw) of capacity. This is substantially below the EIA (Energy Information Administration, a section of the US Department of Energy) projected cost of $1913 per kw and is even below the vendors’ estimate of $1,528 per kw (2004). Under base conditions, it seems unlikely that a new nuclear power plant would be constructed in the United States, barring a sustained, long-term increase in natural gas prices and the creation of a substantial, mandatory greenhouse gas reduction program that would increase coal-fired and natural gas-fired generating costs.”
4. The 1600 MWe European Pressurized Reactor (EPR) reactor being built in Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant, Finland, is a joint effort of French AREVA and German Siemens AG (which has since pulled out). it will be the largest PWR (pressurised water reactor) in the world. However, a report commissioned by the German Federal Ministry of Environment, Nature Conservation and Reactor Safety reported in August 2009 that the project was “more than three years behind schedule and at least 55 per cent over budget, reaching a total cost estimate of €5 billion ($7 billion) or close to €3,100 ($4,400) per kilowatt”.
5. Wikipedia quotes The Christian Science Monitor of August 10, 2006 in an article headed “Nuclear power’s green promise dulled by rising temps” as saying: “In the 2006 European heat wave, a number of nuclear plants had to secure exemptions from regulations in order to discharge overheated water into the environment; several European nations were forced to reduce operations at some plants and take others offline and France, normally an electricity exporter, had to buy electricity on European spot market to meet demand.”
Now, that’s not exactly an endorsement of how nuclear power stations will cope with global warming when heatwaves can create that much havoc!
Finally, your assertion that nuclear power “is the cheapest way to reduce CO2 emissions” is questionable, to say the least.
Steve 1, you always know the right is losing the climate change debate when they switch tack to the nuclear debate, as evidenced by JohnL’s posts. Afraid to say but you’ve lost this one old chap.
Myriad at 45. I apologise for the wrong gender assumption. On the composition of the Senate I quoted Steve 1’s numbers without checking. You are right that if Xenophon voted with Labor and the Greens and Fielding abstained, then something could be passed. But I note you acknowledge that this is unlikely to happen now. I disagree with you that Xenophon was (or is) ever a serious candidate to support a realistic climate change approach.
JohnL@44
Considering only the substantive claims …
1. At an installed cost of $US2000 per Kw or less nuclear is a lot cheaper than any of the renewables, especially allowing for grid connection and CF …
I note also:
Precisely what I have in mind … I did note that coal was cheaper if you zero rate the dumping and general human welfare costs of coal combustion.
2. The shut down of the French nuclear reactors reflected the regulations about using the rivers as heat sinks. Nothing to do with human safety and everything to do with protecting the integrity of a riparian ecosystem. Nuclear reactors need not be water cooled and here in Australia we would probably site them at the seaboard if we did do water cooled.
3. If you think there is a cheaper way to reduce GHGs on an industrial scale to the extent necessary without nuclear power or reducing human existence to something less than what obtained in the middle ages then let’s have it.
Until then … I stand by my claims …
PDAA at 50: I did not think that opposition to nuclear power (my position) was a Right-wing view. Perhaps you can enlighten me and others when it became so. Furthermore, I made a passing aside in my post at 40 to see just how much of the Green position (which includes opposition to nuclear power) was supported by some of the others. My larger response at 49 was in response to Fran Barlow at 44.
JohnL, I wasn’t commenting on your views on nuclear energy which I am sure come straight out of the central committee. Was just referring to the attempt to distract the debate away from Labor vs Greens on ETS amendments, including your wall of text post. Just a bit of frivolity in response to Steve1’s claims to have won the debate.
Fran Barlow @44: “Once a proper price is put on carbon dioxide emissions with Green support it will strongly support the case for nuclear power”
Since you are happy to price CO2 externalities, then presumably you are equally happy to price the nuclear waste externality?
What does that do to the case for nukes?
Fran Barlow @52: “At an installed cost of $US2000 per Kw or less nuclear is a lot cheaper than any of the renewables…”
There appears to be some doubt about the actual bids for building nuclear plants. This discussion was about a recent bid for nuclear power in Canada.
“AECL’s $26 billion bid was based on the construction of two 1,200-megawatt Advanced Candu Reactors, working out to $10,800 per kilowatt of power capacity.
By comparison, in 2007 the Ontario Power Authority had assumed for planning purposes a price of $2,900 per kilowatt, which works out to about $7 billion for the Darlington expansion. During Ontario Energy Board hearings last summer, the power authority indicated that anything higher than $3,600 per kilowatt would be uneconomical compared to alternatives, primarily natural gas.”
That was $10,800 per kW rather than the modest $2,000 per kW that you stated.
The nuclear lobby had better hope that the bids for future plants come in lower than this, or their nuclear dreams will be just that…
“and what coal fired power station is she drawing energy from to send her post.”
Steve 1 – I’ve heard all that tiresome guff before, however, I draw my electricity from the Emu Downs Wind Farm in WA which supplies energy to 50,000 households and costs a little more.
At the moment I’m suffering “bucket back” from transporting the laundry rinsing water to my organic vegetable crops, however I’ve discovered that leaving the car in the garage and walking is excellent therapy for bad backs, so what’s your contribution Steve 1?
“….one of my earlier points that the greens don’t have policies, because policies need to have a mechanism to be accpted by the majority and then implemented, ( and no 10% of the vote isn’t quite a majority), they have objectives which from Emily’s post she clearly believe the Greens have failed to achieve.”
Steve 1 – I’m not a political animal though I tend to breed politicians and perhaps my last post lacked clarity but your response to my mind is jabberwonky. Are you inferring that the Australian voter knows best? And how much credit do you attribute to the Greens for not resorting to political spin and adhering to their policies despite the risk at the polling booths?
The Greens have not failed to achieve at all. Rather it is the Australian public (including myself) who have failed – a public who votes with their feet. Allow me to give a few examples. The Australian voter has elected to their halls of parliament, thieves, paedophiles, liars, rogues and eco-vandals. The list is endless. Such is the wisdom of the Australian voter.
Our glorious past reveals the Australian psyche when it comes to election time – the “revered” Premier, gaol bird and WA Inc boss, Brian Burke, on the take, costing the state of WA some $600 million and still is; Joh Bjelke-Petersen who ran a corrupt government for some twenty years – “Don’t you worry bout that.”
Should I allude to the current democratically elected NSW government? Or perhaps Della Bosca? Of course he can engage in as much sex as he likes (not our business) however I do object to illicit sex during working hours when constituents are paying his salary. Hey….where can I find a job like that?
Professor Donald Horne (now deceased) once wrote: “Australia is a lucky country, run by second-rate people.” Hat tip to the Professor!
The good news is the victory for Greens candidate Adele Carles in the May 16 by-election this year, for the WA state seat of Fremantle – a breakthrough for the environmentally enlightened and a testament to the Greens’ consistent efforts to raise an alternative to Labor.
So be careful what you wish for Steve 1. With some luck, the Australian voter may no longer be dozing at the wheel.
The government plan is for the CPRS to have no real effect before the next election and possibly the one after that. So there is no real rush to get the CPRS in place. For that matter, there is no need to at all to have a CPRS in place to acheive a 25% emission reduction by 2020. We could go close to achieving this by simply converting coal fired power to gas.
The risk that the government and Greens face is that the opposition may realise that going to an election with challenging targets and a plan that actually sets out how this target is to be acheived without putting a price on carbon could be a real enviromental winner.
PDAA – I don’t know who JohnL is and I don’t support nuclear energy I agree with Elsie we need to price the nuclear waste externality. And as you have resorted to name calling (somhow i am in the right) you are the one who has lost. My posts are about the greens amendments to the CPRS and what i have said about these and the motives of the Greens stands unassailed. Finally Emily,”With some luck, the Australian voter may no longer be dozing at the wheel”. I actually believe in the wisdom of the collective rather than the wisdom of some self appointed elite. I don’t think people are stupid or lazy or bad, I think they take they their democratic responsibilities and make the best decisions. Maybe if you saw the good in people and treated them with respect rather than trying to smear people with evil, your views might more readily accepted by a majority. Good luck to Adele Carles, that makes one.
John D @58: “…a plan that actually sets out how this target is to be acheived without putting a price on carbon could be a real enviromental winner.”
Yes, exactly! We can make significant reductions in CO2 emissions WITHOUT an ETS and a WITHOUT price on carbon, whether mandated or “market-driven” by the supply of permits (some kind of “free market”…?)
Why is the government so determined to treat Aussies as Theory X bums (i.e. won’t do anything unless bludgeoned into it)?
We didn’t need a price on water to get water consumption down, in either
Brisbane or Perth. Classic example of Theory Y response – self-motivated and interested in making a worthwhile contribution!
Then again, maybe we have Theory X bums in charge of the coal-fired power plants?
Elise@56
I chose this site above because it was not pro-nuclear but warts and all …
The principal reason for the high cost of nuclear power to date has been that each one has been a unique project rather than standardised, and with the massive roll out of Chinese nuclear it is likely that we will get a mass produced modulr nuclear power station that can be manufactured in a factory and shipped some place else for assembly.
@55
Since nuclear waste is kept 100% on site there is no externality. We insist on secure stewardship and levy them for liability in case the company goes bankrupt. When it comes to decomissioning that cost should be rolled into the cost per KwH of energy.
Fran Barlow @61: “We insist on secure stewardship and levy them for liability in case the company goes bankrupt. When it comes to decomissioning that cost should be rolled into the cost per KwH of energy.”
Hate to disillusion you, but companies have ways of evading expensive responsibilities.
You might fondly imagine that oil companies that operate in the UK sector of the North Sea would be under relatively strict guidelines about plug & abandonment of old wells, and decommissioning of old platforms for their declining oilfields.
You will be delighted to know that when the field is becoming expensive to maintain, they typically sell the old oilfield to a penny-dreadful oil company. These guys fondly imagine that because of lower overheads they will make money where the oil major couldn’t. That can be true for a while.
Inevitably the field becomes uneconomic to run, the penny-dreadful cuts corners with plug & abandonment, then goes leg-up and the field is bought by another hopeful penny-dreadful. Was the decommissioning cost rolled into the reported cost of operations? Perhaps it was, perhaps it wasn’t. Did any of them put money aside to pay for decommissioning? Do you believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden?
Companies come and go. They typically clear out when faced with an expensive decommissioning cost, or cry poor and ask for government (i.e. taxpayer) help, having spent the excess over the years on bonuses for their execs. Have a look at what is happening to our coal-fired power plants. What makes you think that the operators of a nuclear plant would be any different?
Fran Barlow @61: “Since nuclear waste is kept 100% on site there is no externality.”
KEPT ON SITE???
Next to a residential area, for powering our capital cities???
No NIMBY???
Dream on…
Elise at 60 and 62: In 44, i referred to The Congressional Research Service report to Congress on “Nuclear Power: Outlook for New U.S. Reactors (updated March 9, 2007). This report looked at nuclear waster on page 22 where it said: “Highly radioactive spent fuel produced by nuclear reactors poses a disposal problem that could be a significant factor in the consideration of new nuclear plant construction. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA, P.L. 97-425) commits the federal government to providing for permanent disposal of spent fuel in return for a fee on nuclear power generation. However, the schedule for opening the planned nuclear waste depository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, has slipped far past NWPA’s deadline of January 31, 1998. DOE (Department of Energy) currently hopes to begin receiving waste at Yucca Mountain by 2017.
“In the meantime more than 50,000 metric tons of spent fuel is being stored in pools or water or shielded casks at nuclear facility sites. NWPA limits the planned Yucca Mountain repository to the equivalent of 70,000 tons of spent fuel.
“Because U.S. nuclear power plants discharge an average of 2,000 metric tons of spent fuel per year, the Yucca Mountain limit is likely to be reached before any new reactors begin coming on line.”
UPDATE: the Obama Administration has announced Yucca Mountain will no longer be considered the answer for U.S. civilian nuclear waste. Currently, there is no plan for disposing of the waste and plants will be required to keep the waste on the plant premises indefinitely.
Elise@62/3
As long as the cost levied is accurate — I think in Sweden there’s quite a large sum — it doesn’t matter. One can licence people to operate nuclear plants in much the same way one licences banks through APRA or casinos. They have to pass proper solvency tests, lodge deposits and accept full libaility for whatever liability the previous operator had that is unfunded. If a plant can’t find someone that meets those criteria and they can no longer meet liabilities then the state steps in and they lose their asset and continue to owe the ste the money they can’t come up with. The state operates the plant at whatever cost is implied until a new financially solvent operator can step in, or mothballs it using the fund it has gathered while the plant was solvent. Simple.
You quote me:
This is how it is done in most places in the world and people live with it. “Fencepost tests” suggest that there’s little difference between that and normal background radiation. If you live in an area with lots of granite you are likely to be getting similar or greater background radaition to what you get at the fencepost.
For Australia, I’d be inclined to put them exactly where the coal-fired power stations or smelters or other heavy industry are. These places have good access to water, are near heavy demand and the result would be a decline in overall pollution.
And for the record:
It’s misleading to compare an off-shore oil rig with an on-shore power plant since the local environment of the plant is a stable fiuxture whereas off-shore oil-rigs are … err in many meters of water and hard to get at. If someone switches off and abandons a nuclear plant, you can lock the gates and leave it there. It will remain stable. Not so an oil-platform.
Fran @65: “…then the state steps in…Simple”
Now I am sure that you have lost the plot. What sort of answer is that? Plan B is that taxpayers clean up the mess.
Actually make that Plan A also, because no sharp CEO of any solvent company will be hanging around to clean up messes.
So Plan A = Plan B = Taxpayers paying for “externalities”. Brilliant.
Elise, with respect, you may have missed the “deposits are paid” bit.
Robert, with respect, how much “deposit” on the full cost of decommissioning and long-term storage?
Fran @66: “It’s misleading to compare an off-shore oil rig with an on-shore power plant since the local environment of the plant is a stable fiuxture whereas off-shore oil-rigs are … err in many meters of water and hard to get at. If someone switches off and abandons a nuclear plant, you can lock the gates and leave it there.”
I really wonder if you have had much to do with processing plants of any description. You should have a look at some old on-shore plants. They rust and start falling apart. And I am not talking about centuries old, either.
Take a walk around some of the old processing equipment and buildings from the resources sector, left for a few decades. You cannot just “leave it there” indefinately, if the plant has toxic material in it.
I can hardly believe you are saying such things, unless your position is so entrenched that you will abandon basic principles of responsible stewardship.
This is merely a suggestion, but I hope people might consider it:
virtually every thread on climate change / the CPRS on LP ends up with a handful of the same people arguing around and around on nuclear. At the risk of offending people I generally respect, it’s getting boring and repetitive people.
It’s also particularly frustrating on a thread specifically about the Greens’ proposals to amend / revamp the CPRS, which of course doesn’t include nuclear.
There’s hardly any comments on this thread that actually reference the bills the Greens have posted, or talk about the specifics.
How about therefore this one thread is ‘nuclear free’ and looks at what else the Greens have proposed which covers:
household and commercial building efficiency including suggesting a specific separate efficiency target to compliment the RET
the energy grid
renewable energy R&D
renewable energy generation
alterations to the targets
different ways of compensatiing / defraying the exposure of high polluting industries
sustainable transport
FBT on vehicles
green carbon
there are 9 bills in all. And as no-one on this thread has linked to them and the briefing paper provided, they can be found
here
There’s a podcast from Christine Milne on the bills to be listened to
here
Myriad @71, you are right, Christine Milne talks a lot of good sense, and the Greens amendments are all worthwile contributions to the cause of reducing our carbon footprint.
The Greens seem to be focussed especially tightly on reduction, which is a great first step. I would also like to see a bit more attention to how we create a green economy for the future.
Although there are people that argue household solar PV is not cost effective, I reckon that distributed power generation and self-sufficiency is a great idea. The same people will probably argue against household fuel cell generators (BlueGen), but I reckon they are also a great concept. The pioneering Aussies did it before, and we can do it again but in a more high-tech way.
One thing that I have wondered, is how we would roll-out solar PV on a large scale. Say we managed about 75,000 household systems by the end this year, and say we wanted to have all 7.5 million Aussie households on grid-connect solar by say 2020? Roughly 10 years time, to go from 1% of households to 100%.
This is a compound growth problem, i.e. (1+x/100)^10 = 100%. Correct me if I am wrong. The industry would have to grow at x% per year, where x = 60% in round figures. Sixty percent growth 60%, every year, for 10 years.
That is a colossal growth rate! The sort of growth rate that makes CEO’s and investors drool. It is like the extreme growth claims for internet businesses during the dotcom boom.
As such, it is probably not going to happen. Therefore, people who are worried about the Rudd government going broke from supporting solar PV on all households in the next year or so, can rest easy.
A more believable growth rate of say 25% pa (still very high) would mean that it would take 21 years (two decades) to roll-out to all households. Even so, the solar businesses would have to hire and train a quarter of their total staff EVERY YEAR for 21 years. And after that,… all those trained people might have to travel overseas to install solar PV in Asia, if they haven’t already done it themselves.
It would appear to be physically impossible to execute a full roll-out in a short number of years.
Also, by the time the solar PV industry had grown several-fold, it would have economies of scale and not need further support.
Nonetheless, there appears to be a large potential market there, which could support green technology over a long period of time.
I wasn’t suggesting “leaving it there indefinitely” Elise. Plainly, if there’s no reasonable prospect of restarting operation in a hurry, you’d decommission it.
thanks myriad @ 71, couldn’t agree more.
I don’t want to embarrass anyone in particular, but if parliamentary staffers are to engage in trolling imposture of “average concerned citizens” at this blog, it is in their own interest and that of their party that they take the trouble to do so from an email address other than their work email address.
Ouch Paul I presume you mean me. That’s a tad unkind, but yes now I am embarrassed. This is week 2 of a temp. position in Christine’s office. Perhaps a little naively as I’ve long been an open green member on this forum with a personal handle I didn’t really see commenting on this as any different. I’ve frequently linked to greens stuff as a greens member here before.
I do apologise.
Myriad, I didn’t mean you and I didn’t even know about your gig with Christine’s office. Furthermore, you haven’t tried to pass yourself off as an average concerned citizen so I clearly wasn’t aiming at you. Sorry, about any distress caused (however unintentionally).
Lol. Well its probably a good reminder to me Paul because I really haven’t had a chance to think through how to handle having a long-standing private blog ID and now working at Christine’s office. Having been a public servant my whole life I’m used to keeping the things very separate.
I’ll do a formal personal ‘outing’ or something on the next general thread because I certainly wouldn’t want anyone thinking I was trying to masquerade.
I think I can make a pretty guess at who Paul was referring to.
John D @ 58, I’m not sure why you think this:
My strong suspicion is that, if the opposition did such a thing, the Greens would redirect their preferences to the Coalition in a heartbeat. However, it’s not likely to happen. Even those Libs who are considering a compromise on the ETS don’t really believe that climate change is a risk, they’re more focussed on the risks they face electorally if they trigger a double dissolution election.
Opps! I missed the “without putting a price on carbon” bit in the quote from John D. In light of that, I guess he believes there are fairies at the bottom of his garden.
Further to the Greens bill for feed-in tariffs, and my earlier posts on BlueGen – household generation of electricity from natural gas using a fuel cell.
http://www.cfcl.com.au/Assets/Files/BlueGen_Launch_Information_(Web)_May-2009.pdf
The BlueGen units have a byproduct of hot water; namely 200 litres/day. This is enough to supply household hot water at negligible extra cost.
The BlueGen power generation is AT LEAST as efficient as gas-fired power, and probably more efficient if you are co-generating hot water for household use.
The average household would produce more power than they needed from one of these 2 kW units, if they ran it constantly. About 10 MWh/year more, which could be exported to the grid and earn money from feed-in tariff to pay it off faster.
With a decent feed-in tariff, this technology could be rolled out to avoid capacity restrictions from aging coal-fired power stations, and eventually replace some of the capacity.
It is genuine Aussie green technology, and we really should be supporting it.
We lost the initiative with solar panel technology, which is powering ahead in China, US and Germany, and now South Korea I believe. Must we lose the initiative with this new technology too? When in hell are Aussies going to back their own team?
I really hope the Greens discuss the potential of BlueGen, when they are talking about ways of weaning the Victorians off brown coal.
Myriad@76 …
Despite my obvious differences with the Greens on their evaluation of the potential contribution of renewables, of those parties likely to be represented in the next parliament, I regard them as the only one whose conduct suggests an insistent desire for public policy to be based in conceptions of the public interest I’d share.
“Ouch I presume you mean me”…”I didn’t mean you and I didn’t even know about..” …
Now that’s funny … ‘LP: the blog trolled by more parliamentary staffers than any other brand’.
RE: Christine’s bills and amendments: lest there be any confusion, from Myriad’s links, that the Greens have only come up with their own vain bills, which haven’t a hope of getting up, and dummy-spat the actually possible avenue for making an actual difference by putting up actual amendments to the govt’s actual cprs bill: the Greens actually are doing that too.
Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 : Amendments to be moved by Senator Milne on behalf of the Australian Greens
Taking up Elise’s (72) dubiousity that anything can go from 1% to ubiquity in just 10 years: from memory, Christine made reference in her recent Press Club speech to how she was an early adopter, (maybe even the only parliamentarian with one then), of mobile phone technology when it first started, how they were then the size of a brick, and I daresay in the hands of much less than 1% of the population. A bare decade later, there are more active mobile phones in australia than there are people.
So maybe it is possible to get to there from here.
Danny @84: “A bare decade later, there are more active mobile phones in australia than there are people. So maybe it is possible to get to there from here.”
I really sincerely hope you are right Danny!
Mobile phones have been a fabulous growth industry over the past decade, as you say. The mobile manufacturers and service providers have made an absolute mint. One might wish a similar rosy future for the manufacturers of household green technology…
Mobiles have probably saturated their market now. After all, how many mobiles does a man need – one holster on each hip? Duelling mobiles at 20 paces? Nokia et al will get less frequent purchases from upgrades or failed old units, so future profits from mobiles will probably depend on usage rather than purchases.
Maybe those mobile salespeople can retrain for solar PV and BlueGen sales? Would they be sufficiently cool, techy subjects for switched-on Gen Y’s?
More particularly, in comparing mobiles to solar PV or BlueGen, we have a different style of product I suspect. Not being any kind of gun marketing type, I nevertheless think that the technologies are not close cousins. Mobiles are cheap accessories which give added lifestyle features over the alternative technology (landlines).
Solar PV and BlueGen (for example) are substitutes for a high carbon emissions technology. Their added features (low emissions and self-sufficiency) may not be on the cool dude “must have” agenda?
We may need that myth and guru thingo that is being discussed on the other thread (Economics of 350 ppm).
I would of course be ecstatic to be proven wrong, and find ubiquitous home generation in a decade!
The ALP only needs 7 votes to pass things through the Senate, not 8. In one sense this doesn’t invalidate Steve 1’s analysis since the Greens have 5 votes not 6, but I find it interesting that someone who presents himself as the hard headed one, confronting the true reality can get his numbers wrong, not once, but dozens of times.
The Greens have a choice: Set out good policies that, while not the party’s preferred position might form the basis of negotiation with the ALP, or basically cave to whatever the ALP wants.
Option 1 means that if the ALP came to the party and they can get Xenophon on side (a 50/50 bet I’d say) then there is an outside chance of a miracle if one coalition Senator (or Fielding) fails to turn up without a pair, something that has happened before. It also means that the two parties can comfortably go to a Double Dissolution with good policies which will be put through after the election. On top of this the Coalition will be stuck with the climate change deniers lable, something which will be electoral death in future decades. In the meantime whether the ALP comes on board or not this helps shift public perceptions of the issue and what can be done. On top of this, if the ALP and Greens had a strong agreed position which went down in the Senate by one or two votes it would provide a clear boost to Copenhagen, where the Australian delegation could argue they’d have something good through next year, post DD.
Option 2 means that there are still not enough votes to pass the thing through the Senate without the Liberals, and if the Liberals come on board the Greens are unnecessary anyway, so it achieves precisely nothing, other than to undermine critiques of the policy for the future.
You can call option 1 posturing if you like, but it looks to me like its got a few things in its favour. What exactly is there in favour of Option 2? Or is Steve 1 actually advocating a third position – that if you don’t have the numbers to pass something you have a duty not to enter into the debate at all?
Personally, while I don’t mind the Greens negotiating there has to be a bottom line …
Really, a 25% reduction by 2020 ought to be a dealbreaker; so should the principle of no compensation/all permits to be auctioned; transport, forestry and agriculture should be in straight away; indicative price of CO2 of at least $AUS85; maximum of 15% emissions offsets from REDD credits offshore and only with an approved auditing model
Well put, Fran.
Hey, myriad: could you please tell Christine that i love her?!? Truly madly and deeply…um, actually just tell her that I love her! Ta!
Myriad: The Greens should forget about trying to ammend the CPRS and focus on introducing legislation that will drive the tangible action required to keep us on track for the 40% emissions reduction by 2020. (4%/yr if we get started now.) For example, if we introduced regulations that limited the average fuel consumption of new cars to 5 litres/100km with a ramping down after that 2020 emissions would have dropped by over 5%. There should be enough efficiency related regulations that would give us at least another years worth of reductions.
Once they have done that they could start thinking about what other tangible actions could be done to keep the country on target. We have wasted too much time trying to come up with the complete answer and not put enough time into thinking about what we need to do next.
Transport Trivia:
Bureau of Statistics advised in the year to 31st July 1998, cars were driven 173 billion kilometres on Australian roads (14,900 km or 4,325,000 times around earth for each registered vehicle). 80 per cent of cars are passenger types and account for three-quarters of distance travelled. Freight vehicles travelled 36 billion kilometres.
Growth in GHG emissions from road transport is projected to be seven times higher than all other types of transport between 2010 and 2020. Passenger vehicles’ contribution to GHG transport emissions is 60%, commercial vehicles 38% and other 2%.
Industry Reporting to the National Pollutant Inventory reveals that motor vehicle emissions of carbon monoxide is the second highest in the nation with an estimated 2 billion kilograms, metal ore mining 4th highest, electricity generation 7th highest and coal mining, 12th highest.
Electricity generation is the highest emitter of NOx (5 hundred million kgs), motor vehicles, the 2nd highest (340 million), and metal ore mining the 3rd highest.
Motor vehicles emit the 2nd highest emissions of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and metal ore mining is 4th.
Metal ore mining is the highest emitter of particulate matter (PM10) in the nation and electricity generation, the sixth highest.
Motor vehicles are the second highest emitter of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) second only to biogenics.
Carbon based chemicals burn to CO2. CO elevates methane and tropospheric ozone prior to oxidizing to CO2 etc etc.
Angels dancing on the head of a pin – the US bill will target a 17% cut in emissions from 2005 levels – not the 1990 levels we are discussing. That’s the equivalent of 4% from 1990!!! It is (worldwide) business as usual and our twisting and turning will not make a scrap of difference. Unfortunately.
The world simply has not got the capacity to act on these issues. Get ready for nuclear power and geo-engineering, that way big business can make money.