Dr Richard Denniss from The Australia Institute writing in today’s Crikey [reproduced with permission]:
Like most parliamentarians, Penny Wong, the Minister for Climate Change, is a climate sceptic. Of course she prefers to use that term to describe those who ignore the overwhelming science about the causes of climate change, but yet she ignores those same scientists when it comes to deciding what to do about climate change.
The science says that we need to reduce emissions by about 40% by 2020 if we want even a 50% chance of avoiding dangerous climate change. Wong has ignored that advice in setting the targets for her so-called Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) and in developing Australia’s negotiating position for the upcoming talks at Copenhagen.
Imagine the following situation. You observe increasingly worrying changes in your body’s behaviour so you consult a doctor. The doctor diagnoses a serious illness, but assures you that with a long dose of drugs with some nasty side effects, you have a 90% chance of pulling through. You seek a second opinion, which confirms the diagnosis and the prescribed course of treatment. Both doctors remind you that there is some chance that their diagnosis might be wrong and that there is no guarantee that the cure will work. What would you do?
Those with an interest in evidence-based medicine would most likely take the pills, wear the side effects and hope for the best.
But the sceptics have got two options: ignore the diagnosis or ignore the prescription. When it comes to climate change, Wong is clearly the second kind of sceptic.
Imagine walking out of the doctor’s surgery and calling your accountant to help you decide whether to undertake the course of treatment. How much will the treatment cost? How long will you have to spend in hospital? How much money could you earn if you were working instead? What discount rate shall we apply? No doubt some people make decisions in that way, but would you?
But Penny Wong isn’t just a science sceptic, she is an economics sceptic. There is no economic case for the billions of taxpayers’ dollars that are to be given to the polluters and arguments about the need to protect our polluters are inconsistent with our longstanding strategy of lowering our trade protection to encourage other countries to follow suit.
But the economics of the minister’s approach to climate change are much worse than her generosity with taxpayers’ money when it comes to silencing the polluters. Does anybody remember Sir Nicholas Stern? Stern made it quite clear that the economic costs of doing nothing to tackle climate change are much bigger than the costs of decisive policies to solve it.
Of course, some jobs and profits will be lost in the emission-intensive sectors of the economy if we are serious about reducing emissions. That is, supposedly, the whole point. We now find ourselves in the farcical situation of trying to transform ourselves into a low carbon economy without actually changing the behaviour, or the profits, of the biggest polluters.
Despite the fact that the climate change minister is ignoring the scientists and ignoring the economists, she does appear to be winning. Recent polls showing a reduction in concern for climate change will have been music to her ears. The strategy of boring everybody to tears with the byzantine detail of the flawed CPRS seems to be working.
Rather than being grilled about why her targets ignore the science, why her compensation package ignores the economics and why her scheme design ignores common sense, she has simply been able to talk about the sceptics in the Opposition and her commitment to the passage of the CPRS. Neither of those issues is in doubt, but neither of them is terribly relevant.
Fortunately for Penny Wong, the sceptics in the ALP are only influential in cabinet rather than noisy in parliament. But unfortunately for the atmosphere, the political pain of the Opposition is no substitute for a science-based approach to tackling climate change.
Yeah. Dammit. I’m a fan of Penny. Great admirer.
But you are right.
From what I can see, politicians like Wong see the desire by polluters for a continuation of the status quo, and the best guesstimates of scientists about climate change, as ambit claims. This is unsurprising, given the mindset of negotiation and compromise that dominates politicians’ worldview. The obvious solution for Wong is to find a middle ground. But it’s a category error, and the source of Wong’s apparent contradictions. The polluters are making an ambit claim, sure. It’s just another trade deal for them. The scientists, on the other hand, are just calling it as they see it. Trying to haggle is a nonsensical response, and Denniss is right to criticise it.
Then again, there are some problems with his analogy. Of course analogies aren’t meant to be perfect, but a more apposite one changes the implied course of action.
It’s better to imagine that you have many things wrong with your body, but a new one pops up, and it looks like it will have a long-term effect that doctors predict could either be mildly unpleasant, or moderately painful, or possibly crippling. It will also affect your ability to work and earning potential, again with uncertainty as to what degree. Fixing it could have serious side-effects, but doctors are confident that most likely they are better than not doing anything. However, the treatment costs money, lots of money. You still have all the pre-existing problems, some with short-term consequences, that also are going to cost money to deal with, and have nasty effects if not treated. What do you do?
“Stern made it quite clear that the economic costs of doing nothing to tackle climate change are much bigger than the costs of decisive policies to solve it.”
That was just one cost-benefit analysis, one open to substantial criticism. It isn’t the final word on the matter.
As noted in previous discussions of this assertion, it is rather an oversimplification to claim that “the science says” that we should reduce emissions by 40% by 2020.
The science may suggest a cut in the global emissions to avoid certain bad effects. How that reduction over “business as usual” is parcelled up to various countries is a matter of politics.
Australia’s cuts matter in the context of how they will help achieve a global deal on emissions cuts that achieve the kinds of greenhouse concentrations that avoid the worst effects of climate change.
If you make certain assumptions about the way a deal will play out, you can get those kinds of numbers. But claiming the science demands certain reductions by Australia ignores the reality that the point of Australia acting is to convince other to do the same; stating it in the simplistic way creates a totally fallacious link in some minds that Australia can unilaterally mitigate climate change.
Penny is yet another sad little apparatchik, don’t blame her for the CPRs and the pathetic stste of debate and decision making.
Have to go am out, am looking to buy a large cave.. For me and the Amazons.
Huggy.
Denniss’s rants make me sick. Clive Hamilton may have been a wowser, but at least he didn’t habitually resort to ad hominem attacks. This kind of conspiratorial nonsense belongs in Quadrant.
Well said Richard … I find Penny Wong the smoothest and most effective of all the ALP’s ministerial team. She’s as close to a Jedi mind practitioner as I’ve ever seen outside of the movies. I just wish she were on the side of good policy rather than the interests of the big polluters.
I have trouble with the 40% by 2020, because while it’s a great target, the science doesn’t indicate anything that concrete. 5050 targets are a much better predicter of risk.
The more germane numbers are cuts of >80% from 1990 by 2050 by developed countries, the entry of transition countries between 2015-2020 and the developing countries between 2025 and 2030. 15% in 2020 by developed countries might produce a 50/50 chance of coming in under 2°C, but that would also require prompt and hard cuts from all countries. Larger developed country cuts by 2020 improve the odds markedly.
Going in and making the transition as fast as possible from a developed country perspective improves the chance of developing country participation, contrary to what Garnaut worried about in his report with the so-called shag on a rock effect (or being the only rower on the Titanic).
The bigger danger than shag-dom is that if China shifts and shifts hard and we don’t, Australia ends up being the highest per capita emitting country on earth with an economy with low mitigative capacity. The internal signs that China may shift are becoming stronger but they won’t make this clear until they are 100% sure it’s doable. But they may well decide the provide the global economy with zero emissions manufactures is good business practise. Shouldn’t we have a strategy that will manage that?
Also, the last time the Earth was at 387 ppm CO2 for a sustained period, sea level was 25 m higher plus or minus 5 m. We’ve already passed the point where large impacts at the global scale are bound to happen.
Fran @6, “smoothest and most effective” in achieving what, exactly?
I would have thought that a few others actually have more signs of progress (e.g. with health, Telstra and NBN, Finance).
Never mind the clever-dicky “Jedi mind practitioner” gobbledygook if it doesn’t achieve results.
Roger @7: “Earth was at 387 ppm CO2 for a sustained period, sea level was 25 m higher plus or minus 5 m. We’ve already passed the point…”
Standing on the freeway, wondering how long we get to stand there gormlessly before a truck runs us down?
Actually, perhaps the simplest analogy for sea level and temperature, is that of taking an ice cube out of the freezer?
The temperature is indisputably too high for it to remain as ice, however, for a short while we can kid ourselves that it will not melt, or will only melt a little bit…especially if we have no prior experience of ice at room temperature, and no faith in science.
This is another terrible piece:
Science demands 40% cut from Australia by 2020? Wrong, as Robert and Roger point out, things are more nuanced than that.
No economic case for giving any free permits to any polluters? Wrong.
And that aside about lowering trade barriers is a ridiculous statment because unilaterally reducing domestic tariffs RAISES domestic GDP. That simply does not hold in the case of imposing a higher carbon price than some other countries exporting fossil fuel intensive goods.
Penny Wong is in control of Australia’s climate change policy? Wrong. Do you think the PM might be playing a role here Richard?
No attempt being made to change the behaviour of polluters? Wrong. We can have a meaningful debate about whether what is being done will change the behaviour of polluters quickly enough, but to claim that no change will occur is just stupid.
I’m not sure why Richard thinks these polemics are useful but I find them next to useless. There are legitimate grounds to critique the government’s policy, but at every stage Richard goes too far. And for someone that has worked close to public policy for many years (though not for anybody that has had the responsibility of actually implementing anything) he completely ignores the political context within which policy is operating.
Elise,
it would take a very long time to get all that sea level rise, but the work that produced the estimate is pretty robust in my opinion.
Rohling, E.J., Grant, K., Bolshaw, M., Roberts, A.P., Siddall, M., Hemleben, Ch. and Kucera, M. (2009) Antarctic temperature and global sea level closely coupled over the past five glacial cycles. Nature Geoscience, 2, 500-504
So think very big ice block and very big fridge. There may be time to put it back in the fridge, but it hangs on whether a reversal in trends in global GHG gases could be fast enough to cool the ocean waters around Antarctica before the ice block is too far gone (and get same effect in the Arctic). Without setting off anything else too nasty. No-one can reasonably answer that question at the moment.
We will know the answers to most of these questions on big impact risks by 2020. So where would you like to be in 2020 with all this knowledge? Having reduced emissions of the highest per capita emitters by 5%, 20% or 40%?
Being your average Josephine who doesn’t fully understand the science, but accepts the authority of scientists who overwhelmingly insist that urgent action is required on climate, I still found Richard Denniss’s comments unhelpful and unfair. Why attack the person and not the policy? Penny Wong would need the wisdom of Solomon to please all parties affected by the CPRS.
Broadly my impression is that the sops to the big polluters are an effort to get them reasonably on side and undercut likely Liberal outraged opposition. They want the legislation passed however weak it may seem to the Greens who themselves do not have a large enough representation or constituency to help carry a stronger or even this one through the Senate. This government thinks things through carefully and would not be gratuitously rewarding big business. Even Smirker Costello shrugged his shoulders and said that it could all be amended later, so why the urgency, why not wait and see. The answer to that for me is that Rudd wants something legislated for which he and Wong can take to Kyoto. Then they will not be observers with hands behind their backs but active participants who can legitimately get into the action and argue for guidelines to formulate future policies to take to next year’s election.
After Kyoto public opinion will have been stirred up big time. I think Rudd has his sights set on getting strong endorsement from the electorate for a much more ambitious program than the current CPRS. Before we all despair and commit communal hari kari let’s acknowledge how much further along we are now than pre-election 2007.
Like hannah’s dad and Fran I’m a great admirer of Penny Wong and I trust her and Rudd to get done whatever is possible. Happily for us we live in a democracy but there are times when faced with intractable problems like this and the asylum seeker boat people one would like to have Alexander’s freedom and power to cut the Gordian Knot to solve the seemingly insoluble.
Oh come on… The piece is “attacking” Penny Wong because she’s the Australian Government’s face on climate change matters. Denniss is quite deliberately taking a rhetorical position – characterising Labor’s Climate Minister, who is proposing a scheme ostensibly to tackle climate change, as a climate sceptic – in order to draw attention to what’s wrong about Labor’s policies.
It’s not an ad hominem attack, it’s rhetoric, and it works.
If I look at successful step changes in public policy, I look at Keating/Hawke in economics and Don Dunstan in progressive social issues.
Both adopted the practice of incremental change at the level that had the conservatives whining, but kept the electorate on side, and allowed the incremental change to become a revolution over what was a relatively short period.
If I look at a loser of a policy, I need look no further than Howard, who decided to go for broke with workchoices, to go for targets he thought were the right ones, in one fell swoop. Guess where that got him. Or, not to mention Whitlam break or break through – effectively a one termer, and much of his policy legacy dismantled by succeeding conservative governments.
So, Wong can go for the incremental change, a policy that demonstrably worked for Hawke/Keating and Dunstan, and over three or four electoral cycles slowly ramp it up. Or she can go for broke like Howard and Whitlam and see the conservatives nobble it for another three or four electoral cycles.
Oh, and if you think the present Rudd lead in the polls means anything, remember JWH was riding high the election before he was beaten. It took one policy implementation blunder and he was gone.
Rudd grabbed climate policy from the get go by putting the Department of Climate Change within the Prime Minister’s Portfolio. As any Canberra insider will tell you, while Wong is in the Cabinet and has the title of Minister of Climate Change, in reality she is just a junior minister assisting the PM on climate change.
The target here should be Rudd, who as has been pointed out many times in many contexts, has a disposition to be all things to all people and whose tenure has been characterised by an overwhelming need to be liked and to not upset anybody (except, curiously, Telstra shareholders).
This said, Dr Denniss exaggerates ridiculously. The science says very little about 2020 and nothing about Australia’s contributon to 2020. The economics does not say that the big polluters should go cold turkey. Some adjustment assistance is warranted, but less than the goverment is offering and much less than they are asking for.
@13 – yes, it’s clearly not a personal attack.
When it comes to Climate Change aka more truthfully global warming, the Greens are and will remain powerless. As for all the other politicians I gave up on them so long ago now, I can’t remember when it was.
Its entirely up to us as a democrarcy how much, if anything, we do to reduce emissions. We can talk about political imperatives, we can talk about per capita emissions, and we can pretend that paying other counties to not cut down trees is the same thing as dealing with the ‘moral challenge’ of climate chnge. Its ok, we can tell ourselves whatever we want.
All that matters, however, is how many emissions we put into the atmosphere and whether you believe the scientists about what that is likely to mean for our atmosphere.
pop quiz:
Q. have emissions risen or fallen since rudd was election? A. risen
Q. do emissions rise or fall once the CPRS comes in? A. rise.
Q. Will the CPRS lead to the closure of any coal fired power stations in the next 25 years. No
It’s ok CPRS fans. You might be right, it might be the best we can do. But to say i am exagerating when the Minister for Climate Change is running around talking about ‘transforming the economy’…spare me
As for the 2050 targets…who cares. The best way to get to low emisions in 2050 is to start reducing now. Did i mention they are still rising?
We are heading in the wrong direction, and the government is spending more time working on its excuses than its solutions.
Again, its a democracy, and its not at all obvious that we are smart enough to solve the politics of this problem but lets not pretend for a minute we are trying to hard to reduce the actual emissions
And sorry for ‘personalising’ my crituque, but i am not sure that those who are saying that Wong is just a puppet and that i should pick on Rudd are being very nice to her. I am simply taking her at her word and holding her responsible for what she has to say. Isn’t that how Westminster democracy works?
“Q. Will the CPRS lead to the closure of any coal fired power stations in the next 25 years. No”
Is that the right question Richard? What if we changed it to, how much lower than today will the proportion of Australia’s electricity that is produced by burning coal be in 2035? All modelling I have seen suggests that proportion will be significantly lower unless CCS proves economically viable.
The major way this will occur is not by closing power stations down, but by them reaching the end of their economic life and not being replaced by new coal fired power stations.
It will be a gradual transformation, not a revolution. Again, short of what you think is necessary, which is fine….but could you please tone down the rhetoric? Your pieces actually do the cause no favours because they play to the crowd that already agrees with you and pisses off everyone else….
Just to clarify then – you accept that we are just waiting till the power stations close down but we are going to pay them billions in compensation?
If we are just waiting them out, why not just ban the construction of new coal fired power stations and save all the faffing around?
Again, if you think thats the best we can do and the majority of the population agree then so be it, but i hope you are writing to Wong and asking her to tone down her rhetoric about ‘transforming to a low carbon economy’.
It seems a bit rich to suggest im the one doing the exagerating, im just quoting the Treasury’s modelling
“transforming to a low carbon economy”
The only minister to have used this phrase, at least according to Google, is Wayne Swan. Which was a bit silly, but you can’t hang that on Wong. In fact she doesn’t talk much about the economy at all. What she does talk about is the need and means to get an international agreement that stabilises emissions at 450 ppm.
Now maybe this is too high and it should be 350 ppm but aside from this, getting the agreement and the means to enforce it is actually the prize. While some may pitch a tent at the thought of putting the coal fired electricity generators in Australia out of business, this is not an end in itself.
It is the “spin” on the modelling that I object to….
I also disagree with extent of the assistance being given to generators and TEEI industries, especially the generators. But I can at least see that some assistance is necessary for the latter because of carbon leakage and that some generators will face a lower profit stream, which will lower their asset values….The assistance to generators will also be a one-off…When you say that there is NO economic case for assistance to either of these sectors, you are either being disingenuous or haven’t read the literature….I suspect the former….
Finally, Wong is a politician. I expect her and her cohorts to politicise and spin the debate to their advantage….But you are an economist attached to the Crawford School….Shouldn’t you hold yourself to a higher discursive standard?
I keep talking about the generators and you keep talking and the trade exposed sector. Who is doing the spinning here?
The discursive standard i hold myself to is honesty. The modelling is quite clear. The CPRS is a very expensive way to achieve very little.
I take your point Labour Outsider. You think its good enough, i dont. but try not to malign my motives and integrity rather than criticise my aruments, especially as i am more than happy for my real name to be linked to my arguments and conclusions. Life and politics arent always easy, but i stand by my public comments and the evidence on which they are based.
No, the right question is, how much lower will Australia’s carbon emissions be in 2035? Not our carbon intensity, not our emissions per capita, not the number of windfarms built, or the proportion of electic cars on the road. The only thing that matters is carbon emissions in absolute terms. The atmosphere doesn’t care about anything else.
If such a policy was followed globally, carbon emissions would continue to grow for several decades. We need to close coal-fired power stations everywhere now.
Richard, I have criticised your arguments on a number of occassions. I have talked about both generators and TEEI sectors – neither of your last two Crikey pieces have distinguished between them properly.
“There is no economic case for the billions of taxpayers’ dollars that are to be given to the polluters and arguments about the need to protect our polluters are inconsistent with our longstanding strategy of lowering our trade protection to encourage other countries to follow suit.”
Where in this sentence do you distinguish between the two? Indeed, the fact that you refer to lowering trade protection strongly suggests that by the term “polluters” you are referring to both generators and the TEEI sector.
I would strongly disagree with your view that the CPRS will be an expensive way to do very little. If the 2020 target ends up being a 25% reduction, that would be around 45% below the baseline level at 2020. Sure, a significant proportion of that reduction will occur through importing credits, but IF those credits are legitimate, it won’t matter in the slightest to the environment where the reductions actually occur, as long as they do occur.
Your point about coal generation is also highly misleading because emphasises something that is relatively unimportant (how many coal fired stations close) and underemphasies what is more important (how will the relative shares of energy production of different energy sources change).
You also place too much weight on transitional features of the scheme and don’t seem to understand the difference between those features that affect the scheme’s efficiency and those that largely affect the scheme’s distributional fairness.
Australia is a fossil fuel intensive economy compared to other developed countries, that is also highly dependent on exports of fossil fuel intensive goods and services. The transitional costs of transforming such an economy into a one based on low carbon inputs will be considerable. There are quite defendable reasons for undertaking this transformation gradually.
I love Penny Wong, she is a true scientist at heart. She knows what she must do to satisfy the left, but she also knows that the science which supports AGW is still shaky. She also knows that the opinion of people all over the world is changing regarding AGW, they do not believe it anymore, and the same goes for Australians. To be re-elected, she must stay with what the population believes at the moment. So stick to your guns Penny! The skeptics have won!
In your face Greenies!
I guess it feels good to say all that in the absence of referencing reality. You know, the little fact of having to produce a bill that actually may have a chance to get through the Senate without scaring the crap out of the public.
But the Greens all or nothing mantra means they have no interest in having anything done, as they know that the ‘all’ option will never get through. I would be targeting the Greens rather than the Govt as the most irresponsible group. But that doesn’t fit with the feel good bit of stamping feet and pointing angrily at something.
It should be remembered of course that anything that Australia does, even going for the top shelf options will have next to no effect on GW. The whole point of the exercise was for Australia to get on board with at least something so it can have some sort of position to argue from on the global stage.
It is also ignored by the Green extreme position is that having done the hardest bit, getting something actually made law, then targets and settings can be changed, especially after the next election.
Attacking Penny Wong is just stupid and ignores the realities of what actions can actually be taken in the current political context.
Fortunately Wong, Rudd and Co have more of a desire to actually seriously deal with the issues than the purist finger waggers.
“We need to close coal-fired power stations everywhere now”
That is just plain silly Carbon and you know it. Coal fired power stations are responsible for 70% of Australia’s electricity supply. Other sources simply could not expand supply rapidly enough to fill the gap. Closing them all down in the short-term would have devastating macroeconomic and regional effects.
LO @25: “There are quite defendable reasons for undertaking this transformation gradually.”
A reasonable comment, as long as it doesn’t become an excuse for virtual inaction.
There may be vested interests that will compound this argument, and the argument about percentage of total global emissions, and the argument about trading to “help our poorer neighbours”, and the argument about decreasing in areas where it is “economically efficient”, etc…until they have built up a huge fortress of excuses for inaction.
It is fine as a short-term strategy – make hay while the sun shines, and to hell with tomorrow. However, if climate change causes a major crisis in glacial water feeding the major rivers in China and India, then they may turn quite quickly. Basic human survival will probably focus the minds of their leaders wonderfully…
We will wind up like the dinosaur car manufacturers in the US, who refused to admit the world was changing and they were being left behind. Who will bail us out financially, when nobody wants our product (coal) any more? Who will care about our fine set of excuses then?
What we need to do is institute a program of converting them to gas, which would reduce emissions by 50%. The electorate would see something tangible happening and would take heart.
The electorate is not going to be amused when they work out that our “reduction” in emissions involves paying people in PNG not to cut down trees.
I think Penny Wong is not very interested in the science. She’s a lawyer with a brief. Her task is to implement Labor’s election promise.
Rudd ditto. At least Turnbull understands the basic science, but much good that does him!
“What we need to do is institute a program of converting them to gas, which would reduce emissions by 50%.”
Sounds great but a ton of coal costs about $40 and delivers about 21 million BTUs. It requires about $140 worth of natural gas to deliver the same number of BTUs. So converting to natural gas is a great idea, but your power bills will triple. Good luck selling that plan, as your job moves to China.
Klem, if that’s right it’s the worst news I’ve heard in a while.
Its great to see such a passionate defence of political pragmatism. You guys should really keep it up, but are you really surprised that some people think that the uncensored voice of science and economics has arole in the debate? Maybe you think its better that all the advice is given behind closed doors, cabinet makes a decision and we all just accept that whatever compromise they come up with is the best they can do?
Is that what the polluters did? You would have thought they got a great deal in the white paper but they spent the last 10 months bashing the government mercilessly, and have billions more to show for it. But maybe you are right. maybe those who want a good environment outcome should sit up straight, say thank you, and trust that in 2020 the scheme will be improved. There is no chance of getting out politicked then is there?
The Greens may agree, but the calls for big reductions in emissions are coming from the scientists. If you think that calling for targets that are consistent with the science is an ambit claim thats fine, you should stick to that line, but in my book that makes you a sceptic.
And my quick google search found Wong on Lateline, 26/5/09 saying that ‘We need to get on with transforming our economy’. Please LO, get on to her stat. Demand a clarification. Correct the record. i know you hate it when people spin
And another thing:)
please stop conflating the finding that giving free permits to polluters may not be a bad idea with a case for it being a good idea.
There is no economic imperative to do so. At best it is a poor distributional decision (did we compensate workers who lost their jobs as a result of trade liberalisation? Should we compensate James Hardie for banning asbestos?).
At worst it is bad distribution and a huge missed opportunity to invest the funds in further mitigation or abatement.
Klem is probably about right. However, you can burn gas a lot more efficiently in gas turbines, which makes it a lot more cost-competitive.
However, it means you don’t get to use the old infrastructure.
Klem@31 said:
I’m not sure about the relative price per BTU but the following notes are germane:
1. The conversion efficiency of CCGT can be as high as 65% whereas the conversion efficiencies of the coal plants we’d convert first are well the wrong side of 30%. IIRC Hazelwood is about 24%. Even the best of the coal plants (eg IGCC) are not going to pass 45%. If CC&S for coal becomes part of the picture, the efficiencies on coal conversion will drop by at least 20%, and we also have to throw in the energy cost of sequestering all that CO2 under pressure in rock formations perhaps hundreds of miles from site.
2. It is assumed that households and businesses will cut their energy consumption by a significant amount, so even if the cost per BTU is greater the total bill may not be much affected.
In a way I agree with you, and I don’t for a moment believe it will happen. But equally, if the science is right (and AFAIK you accept the science) its silly not to start closing coal-fired power stations now. The best outcome for the climate will be achieved by deep cuts as soon as possible. It would be nice if you acknowledged that just once, instead of berating us deep greens for being “silly”.
Isn’t that what all this is about? Short term pain for long term gain. Sure there must be compromise, but where is the compromise from the polluters or coal miners? None that I can see.
And for those who think GHG emissions are the only reason for preferring gas plants to coal-fired power … let’s wander off to the US and see how things are going over there …
Gosh … doesn’t that just make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside? Isn’t it interesting what happens when you place no value on ecosystem services to humans and count only the cost of converting the fuel source and delivering it?
Have a look at this. It looks like Brian Toohey is also being “unfair” to those formulating our position on global warming:
http://inside.org.au/shortchanging-the-greatest-moral-challenge/
In response to Klem @ 31, we have Robert @ 35 and Fran @ 36.
Which indicates that the situation is much more complex than the simplistic stuff Klem gave us @ 31. Also I could have done without his sarcasm.
The usual figure given for possible energy savings is 30%. So I’d be surprised if the wasn’t a critical path in there to design a phase-out program for coal, involving renewables as well as gas. As the matter stands there is nothing to stop coal from being increased.
In the NT in Darwin and Alice Springs with gas as the main fuel – tariff is 18.31 cents/kWH. In SA with a much larger scale of generation and a mix of fuels, the tariff is around 14 cents/kWH. In Vic depending on the supplier and the time of day it is between 8 and 20 cents.
It seems that there is not that much in it at all.
I’ve been suggesting the “Labor are climate sceptics” line to friends for a while now. Perhaps to be less ad hominen we could say they have adopted a ‘climate sceptic position’.
It is absolutely true that they have a huge problem navigating the necessary changes through the political system. But this is, according to Mr Rudd, the “greatest moral challenge of our generation”. Great moral challenges don’t have easy solutions by definition, I would have thought. Where is the leadership?
On the other hand, it has become increasingly clear that Wong et al are pushing hard for 450ppm in international negotiations, which is much better than many of us feared. And strictly speaking, it’s the IPCC figure, which is what governments are reliant on.
Peter Hollo @13: you’re correct that the piece is rhetoric, rather than ad hominem. Whether it “works” is another question. To me it comes across as strident, overblown and sanctimonious, and reduces the credibility of the Australia Institute as a policy voice. But that’s just me. Perhaps it’s music to the ears of rusted-on Greens voters, in which case I still can’t see how it “works”, as preaching to the converted has limited utility.
Labor Outsider @ 19, just wondering if you would’ve supported John Kaye’s 2007 Climate Futures Bill if the goal is to retire coal fired plant? (rather than, close them NOW!1!!!1!!111)
Klem @31, here is an alternative published set of figures for cost of electricity:
Total Electricity Costs (A$/MWh)
Coal 35
Natural Gas 40
Hydro 60
Biomass 60
Nuclear 70 (Not full life cycle costs)
Wind 80
Photovoltaic 150
Geothermal 20-40
HFR Geothermal 40-60 (depending on scale)
Note that the coal cost does NOT include the cost of CCS, which according to some reports could double the cost of electricity i.e. A$70/MWh, thus making nuclear competitive with coal, as claimed by the nuclear lobby.
Electricity from natural gas is NOT more than 3 times the cost of coal-fired electricity, as you are trying to claim.
According to these figures, gas-fired electricity is only A$5/MWh more.
We only use 3 MWh in a year, so the extra cost for gas-fired electricity is equivalent to about 3 cappucinos. Other households might need to forego a weeks worth of cappucinos.
Robert Merkel @35: “However, it means you don’t get to use the old infrastructure.”
I seem to recall JohnD saying on an earlier thread that you could reuse a lot of the existing infrastructure, if the plant isn’t at the end of its life.
Better half has been involved in designing and building both coal-fired and gas-fired power plants, and he is confident that a lot of the existing equipment from a coal-fired plant could be adapted and reused, provided it is in reasonable condition.
Where there is a will, there is a way!
Coal-fired generators lack the enthusiasm to bend their minds to the problem.
Status quo and smokescreens are cheaper.
Elise@46
You can but you shouldn’t. You need to build CCGT and run it at as high a temperature as possible. You obviously won’t need a coal crusher. Maybe the control room could be kept and of course the access roads …
Fran @47, so you would ditch the boilers, all the air/oxygen feed system, flue system, and all the electrical circuitry,… just keep the roads???
Much of that system isn’t going to apply. The set up for the heating/cooling cycle is going to be apply.
OCGT plants can probably use a lot more of this technology but these are less efficient and really are best for peaking loads. To get the big efficiency gains you need CCGT.
Oops … senior moment …
The set up for the heating/cooling cycle is going to be quite different. Brayton cycle different…
Fran @49: “OCGT plants can probably use a lot more of this technology but these are less efficient and really are best for peaking loads.”
OK then, convert the NEWER coal-fired power stations which have reusable technology to open cycle gas turbine (OCGT) with renewables. The high turn-down ratio can be used to fill in the gaps from the renewable power, and the reuse of equipment makes it lower CAPEX.
Scrap the DECREPIT coal-fired power stations and replace them with the best combined cycle gas turbines (CCGT).
That way, you reuse what can be salvaged to lower the overall cost, and you have a system that integrates with renewables.
The world needs to cut emissions by 40% by 2040, Australia could completely cut all emissions and China would replace it in 3 mths and to sudjest what we do really matters to the big poluters is a joke. Why does no one ever discuss a straight tax or regulation but insist on creating a commodity market [carbon credits] open to all the usual manipulations and expect to shink in size unlike any market in history. You are all still on the same old silly round about.
Carbonsink advocates that coal fired power stations should be shut down now.
This could be turned into a big media event. The owners of Hazlewood Power Station could call a press conference at the site with the likes of Carbonsink, Bob Brown, the Wilderness Society and any other supporters of the proposition to announce the immediate shutdown of the facility. They could even give Bob Brown the honour of flicking the switch and publicly extolling the virtues of ceasing carbon emissions from the facility.
The chief advocates would have the opportunity of owning the decision.
How long do you think that any admiration for that stance would last before the Victorian citizenry would demand their guts for garters?
I would say less than 5 minutes.
Elise and maybe,Fran and Brian Toohey see through the muck,and as a strict amateur at opinion influencing outcomes[the pays tremendous], I like asking questions,every time something comes up.The problem about that desire,is no-one I now feel has my confidence to answer.Barium was solidly being hit here as like a Mallee Scrub Bull that found itself having to play AFL.But what is Barium,and has it got a potential to not spill into either air or water doesn’t seem a particularly hard question to ask,then simply indulge in creative scientific pursuit.ANSTO could do that.I like the thought of both Nuke Scientists and Engineers applying their intelligence,I am more unsure of Nuke Fission as power stations however.And I think they [scientists and engineers nuke] can think outside the box when it comes to coal fired matters,because essentially they really aren’t into proving the worthiness of this or that coal.They know like me,and,anyone who will declare they can think will unavoidably get round to thinking…something really basic about coal fired power stations is being overlooked in declaring matters of hazardous emissions.And I claim,that,one of many matters overlooked is that the present design of power stations as building architecture has not been evolved to see the potential through to reducing harmful emissions.That is applying known architecture that can be also part of cleaning up emissions.And a Dome comes to mind,converting it too a hill made of strawbales,then growing and ecology on top of that,as has been experimented with overseas taking in a very large area of space and hectarage if necessary.The other matter that often comes up with me at least, is the present electrical grid system and that ranges wherever electricity meets user,is very fixed.Gas can come in cylinders for heating,but,strange that the option that gas and electricity meeting at the users end,actually would seem an advantage that would be entirely flexible.Gas and electricity are the foundations of the longer fixed matters as they are.So combining gas in cylinders and the electricity through the lines seems to have,tome, that flexible magic.Piped gas up to a point, then delivery as it is now.Certainly traffic creates pollutants,but, there does seem many fine technologies already in use.I suggested previously here that spark plugs could be regular household technologies in response to matters related to laser use in cars.Where electricity and gas are used to fire in more powerful efficient options is where the spark plug could be use.This is the inventors option the DIY approach using the essential availability of grid electricity and gas together for a number of responses at home.Dare to think about it an insist on someone having ago.Thus then less excuses to spend billions of dollars towards compensation,whilst reducing pollution by the process being in the hands of well informed individuals with some technical skills.The great unscrubbed everyone.
DK @44
On opening new coal fired power stations, I’m generally not in favour of banning anything outright – I’d rather see proper pricing take care of things. However, I have a hard time seeing how the economics of opening a new one would work unless the company opening the station expected carbon prices to remain very low for the next twenty or so years. That said, what if CCS becomes viable? I know we have debated the likelihood or worth of that techonology vigorously on these forums, but I wouldn’t want to rule it out…Whereas that bill would, on my reading.
Richard
“And my quick google search found Wong on Lateline, 26/5/09 saying that ‘We need to get on with transforming our economy’. Please LO, get on to her stat. Demand a clarification. Correct the record. i know you hate it when people spin.”
I’ve worked for the ALP as an adviser in the past. My views on spinning were made well known internally. But that statment doesn’t say anything about the pace of transformation does it? Can you point to a quote of hers where she says that the transformation will occur in the short, rather than the long term?
And workers in displaced industries have received considerable amounts of assistance through structural adjusment programs during the trade liberalisation process, and the automotive industry has benefited from an enormous amount of transitional assistance.
And I think the analogy with James Hardy is a poor one.
And please stop using the term “polluter” – what do you mean here? Are you talking only about the stationary energy sector? Or TEEI sectors as well? The economics of permit allocation are quite different depending on which you are talking about.
I never said that free permits to generators was optimal. But your article reads as though free allocation destroys the efficiency of the scheme and that there was no economic case for free allocation. That is just wrong.
I have no problem with uncensored science and economics. I am an economist myself. However, your crikey pieces are political polemics, not well reasoned economic analyses.
and your name is Labor Outsider? How about we have an honest debate and own our strong opinions. i’m not ashamed of any of the statements i have made
LO, Ross Garnaut seems pretty keen to trash the economic arguments for free permits for both power stations and TEEI industries (in the latter case, on the principles determining amounts, not assistance per se). I can’t find the exact quote I’m afraid – maybe someone has it.
As an aside, it’s also worth remembering that the ‘carbon leakage’ argument doesn’t work for many of our TEEIs, eg. aluminium smelters, because ours are more emissions intensive than most of the world. It would be a good thing for the planet if our aluminium smelting moved offshore!
Well actually I said: “We need to close coal-fired power stations everywhere now”. Everywhere includes China. As I said above, I don’t for a minute believe this will happen in Australia. In fact, I doubt it will happen anywhere.
OTOH, the climate science tells us the best outcome can be achieved by big cuts to emissions as soon as possible. If the entire world follows the policy of allowing existing coal-fired power stations to run until the end of their economic life (or God forbid, build new coal-fired power stations) global emissions will continue to expand for several decades. This will most likely result in something similar to the IPCC’s worst case scenario.
Now this is a fair enough position if you reject the science, but if you accept the science, and you also advocate a very slow transition to a low carbon economy, you are also advocating a very bad outcome for the climate. If you advocate that Australia, a very rich country with vast potential for low carbon energy (natural gas, uranium, solar, wind, geothermal) should be given special treatment because we have chosen to build a very fossil intensive economy, then I cannot see that going down well in international climate negotiations. If I were a foreigner, I would look at Australia and think you have the potential to cut harder than anyone else.
Again, I don’t believe any of this will happen. My own belief is Copenhagen will produce an agreement that is a media triumph, but actually delivers nothing. I believe we will follow the business-as-usual path for at least the next 20 years, and global emissions will continue to expand.
Carbonsink, I suspect that if negotiations are concluded in Copenhagen there is about zero chance that there will be realistic (in terms of the science) 2020 targets set. More likely is some sort of agreement on 2050 and hiding behind the “common but differentiated responsibility” principle, which effectively means every country does whatever it feels like. I can’t see the US, Japan, Canada and Australia accepting anything else.
Which leaves India saying that they have no obligation to restrain emissions because the historic generators of emissions are not taking responsibility.
Which leaves leadership in a real sense with the Chinese and whatever the Chinese/US dialogue will produce.
I think our best chance is some serious disaster in the next 10 years, as I outlined here which shocks the world into recognition of the dangers, followed by a war footing effort to reign things in by 2030.
Heads up for anyone interested. Newsradio is doing poll on the congestion tax …
Vote now …
China and the US have some other issues to sort out in the short term. China has been running a giant vendor financing scheme for the past 5 years and the customer is now in default. I really don’t think climate change is at the top of the agenda.
Back to the issue of whether Australia deserves “special treatment” because of its carbon intensive economy. Looking around the world, can you name another country with a relatively robust economy (post GFC) and large untapped potential for clean energy? Norway comes to mind, and they’re pushing for a 40% cut.
Penny Wong has done a good job of sorting out what has to be done to set up a practical emissions trading system. Unfortunately she doesn’t appear to have taken the next logical step – accepting that the result is a complicated dog and having another look at the alternatives, including those that don’t involve putting a price on carbon.
She seems to have got dug into lawyer mode – defending her brief instead of seriously considering the alternatives.
At the moment Penny’s approach is working for the government because the opposition is in such a climate action shambles. However, the government could be in real trouble if they go into the next election with no tangible results and an oppostion which has come up with a better, simpler option that the voters can understand .
Thomas Paine @27, you sound a lot like Greg Combet.
The Greens position is actually spot on what the IPCC recommends – which is based on science. Your political rhetoric is nonsense.
Maybe we need to change the current political context? Away from Corporate Welfare and steadily increasing emissions. In the UK the conservatives are championing energy efficiency and strong emission reduction targets.
In Australia the conservatives (and half or more of Labor) are heavily influenced by skeptics and/or are in denial. And out of touch with the Australian public who they are supposed to represent . . .
Wrong. Wong, Rudd and Co are all talk and no action. Emissions continue to rise, including under the CRPS. And they can buy our way out by purchasing offsets in developing countries – thereby outsourcing green jobs and a genuine low carbon economy.
What we need is really quite simple once you strip away corporate/government spin and rentseekers PR:
* Reduce emissions each and every year – based on targets
* Ditch emissions trading and put a real price on carbon. Relying on the vagaries of a compromised “market based system” just won’t work. Just look at the GFC.
* Introduce financial incentives to sell less power (and water) as they have in California
* Transition to a low carbon economy (e.g. electric cars, wind power, solar power, distributed storage etc.)
* Avoid the nuclear hoax (not it getting ramped up over the last couple of days)
* Be honest.
John D @60 and Peterc @61, great posts guys!
Agree strongly with what you are saying.
“However, the government could be in real trouble if they go into the next election with no tangible results and an oppostion which has come up with a better, simpler option that the voters can understand.”
One could only wish that Barnaby Joyce, Malcolm Turnbull and Bob Brown would find a united front on this, so that we get a decent answer for Australia – maximum results for minimum cost.
If Wong gets her way, we will have exactly the opposite result.
_PeterC@61: Agree with much of what you say but I think you need to have a think about “the putting a real price on carbon”. Once you start looking at specific opportunities to reduce emissions the most price effective way to achieve the result comes out seems to always come from leaving the cost of the dirty alternative unchanged and doing something else. In many cases the “something else” will have negligible cost. (Think the use regulations for example.)
Even when investment is required it is more price effective to “put a price on the clean alternative”. In other words offer sales and price guarantees for the clean alternative so that average price ramps up slowly instead of being forced up to the level required to justify investment in the clean alternative.
In the short term I think it makes more sense to forget about pure electric cars and focus plug in hybrids and high efficiency cars. A plug in hybrid version of this half width tilt cabin car might be the way to reduce both emissions and urban congestion.
John, I was thinking along the lines of a carbon tax of around $50-70 per tonne. Everybody understands taxes and takes great effort to avoid them, so this would be much more effective than a fatally flawed ETS (the CPRS).
And removing all the hidden subsidies for fossil fuel use such as the vehicle lease tax concessions for minimum kilometers for starters.
Or maybe we should just ban carbon emissions – like CFCs? May seem radical, but the end of life on earth as we know it is looming. The ban could be forward dated to take effect in say 2015. Permits could be issued at great expense for exceptional cases.
I think there is a need for both plug in hybrids and electric cars.
100% electric cars will be much cheaper (no internal combustion engines) and will suffice for the vast majority of urban trips and quite a few short rural ones (e.g. Melbourne to Geelong). They would be ideal for people buying a second car – they can keep their fossil fuel dinosaur for occasional longer trips. Or get rid of it and hire a vehicle on the occasions it is needed.
‘May seem radical, but the end of life on earth as we know it is looming.’
Ah but Peterc hardly anyone actually believes that. We are all sceptics now. It’s unthinkable that you could be correct, therefore we won’t think about it. Even if it were to be proven conclusively that all coal-fired power stations should be closed tomorrow to avoid catastrophe in 20 years, nothing much would happen. Most people would simply refuse to believe it, in much the same way as billions continue to smoke confident that the science might be right in an abstract sense but it has no practical application to them.
I wrote several years ago that human institutions would prove incapable of responding in a meaningful way to AGW and we’ll all just have to cope as best we can with whatever’s coming. Nothing that has happened since makes me reconsider my opinion.
However if things do get nasty in 10 or 20 years time, the idea that Australia will continue to enjoy freedom of action is quaint. People can frame scenarios as national security issues if it helps them sleep at night, confident the ADF will protect us, but it might be rather more serious than that. However as I say hardly anyone truly believes that anything bad is going to happen so it will remain a matter for idle chatter on blogs like this.
Ken,
I think quite a few people now believe it, but feel powerless in the face of intransigence from our political and government institutions who tend to go where the business is. We aren’t really represented in this system You vote for a proxy and the policies of both major parties come directly from industry, complete with lashings of PR.
I think we need referendums on matters of such import – but the Australian Constitution (and political process) in its current form doesn’t allow for this.
Step 1 would be to amend the constitution to allow citizen initiated referendums.
Penny Wong and Ian Macfarlane sharing the love sure aint gonna do it.
Oh please. She will just do what she’s been instructed to do. She probably doesn’t have a strong opinion of her own about it. She’s a lawyer for god’s sake.