Comments on: CPRS Rage

By: Brian

Brian — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:53:08 +0000

On Wednesday the Fin Review had an article on coal mining. One of the problems in the industry is “fugitive emissions” or gassy mines that release methane during mining. Worldwide if you take the gas and oil industry as well as coal this source amounts just under ruminants and more than rice cultivation. It appears to be the fastest increasing sector.

The gasiness of mines varies greatly, so the government is reluctant to grant them EITE status, which would provide a huge windfall go ungassy mines. Instead they have thrown in $750 mill over 5 years to help mines cut emissions.

The miners are not happy. They reckon the assistance would cover only 4.5% of their costs leaving them $14 billion out of pocket over 10 years. This feature will certainly affect their competitiveness with other sources of coal.

But if the Govt goes the EITE route it will cost revenues in the ETS $10 billion over 10 years.

Interestingly the Coalition wants to use regulation, forcing cuts of emissions by 30% 2025. They reckon mines should capture and divert waste methane from underground mines at least to power generation.

We wait to see which way MacFarlane and Wong will jump.

By: Brian

Brian — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:36:05 +0000

Here's a short video on how the "everybody wins" thing works. And here is Clark and Dawe.

By: murph the surf.

murph the surf. — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:51:03 +0000

at 47-”Those industries can then buy carbon credits from those countries and their enterprises who have either been growing trees or using renewable energy so that they can sell carbon credits on the global market which our polluters buy.”
.
This is the much praised transfer of equity mechanism.
And with the money the less developed countries obtain they can buy technology from us to boost their carbon credit production.
Everyone wins!

By: wbb

wbb — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:56:16 +0000

“climate change direct action” gets 1,710,000 google returns at moment

someone should track it – watch it grow – too slow for sure – but would make an interesting index

By: Sir Henry Casingbroke

Sir Henry Casingbroke — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 11:20:23 +0000

Hands up those who are confused. Okay, this is the way it works. We sell fossil fuels to major carbon polluters overseas and for this we get paid lots of money. The enterprises that are using our carbon-based fuels in those countries overseas pollute the atmosphere with greenhouse gases. Our government gets a royalty from the carbon extraction industries and then distributes the largesse to our polluters by exempting them from the carbon tax and by subsidising them through our tax system so they can buy carbon credits to include their purchase expenditure as input costs and which then come off their bottom line for the purposes of being assessed for taxation. The government can afford to forgo the tax revenue because it earns the royalties from the miners who sell to polluters overseas, who at the same time have the government over a barrel because the government relies on the royalties which they bring in. Our own polluters, who supply the cheap but dirty energy we need to have a good life also have the government over a barrel because politically the population will not put up with the true (high) costs of the coal energy we use once the ecological externalities are taken into account. Those industries can then buy carbon credits from those countries and their enterprises who have either been growing trees or using renewable energy so that they can sell carbon credits on the global market which our polluters buy.

By: Ootz

Ootz — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:30:32 +0000

Hmmm, there maybe something to this call for direct action, because rage in itself has no effect at all and all this pent up energy needs to go some where. Perhaps that’s even what Kevin wants, how else is he going to get his above mentioned minimum 40% cut by 2020. Imagine the wing nuts uproar if that number would be on the table now. Yes the middle class needs to be activated, as Anthony above pointed out, it worked for the Franklin. I am afraid the 350 campaign is too intangible, what is needed is some thing that is better defined and can be branded in a Australian political context.

By: anthony nolan

anthony nolan — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 07:44:26 +0000

Hmm. Read the blog you referred to. Non-violence is an essential value in democracy even though opponents can and probably will resort to the opposite and use the dirty forces of the state as well. I don’t think it an accident that NSW Police have acquired a water cannon, for example, which is only useful against massed groups and has no alternative use (ie, no sprinkle setting).

So, non-violence is the key tactic. The middle classes swung behind the Franklin campaign not merely to support their favourite romanticised wilderness but because the campaign was well conducted along those principles.

I think the major difference now, compared to maybe two decades ago, in perceptions of capital’s assault on the ecological conditions of existence is that the professional bourgeoisie has woken up to reality. They will be key players who as yet lack the nerve or the will to act as citizens in common in preserving life but that moment may not be far away.

By: Lefty E

Lefty E — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 07:31:06 +0000

“I also am increasingly coming across calls for mass scale non-violent direct action and general refusnik behaviour as a necessary step by which to encourage the s.d. parties to face up to capital.”

Im certainly of that school of thought, Anthony.

Another big part of all this is the anthropomorphic error: the implicit idea that somehow the earth was designed to suit our needs and accommodate us, endlessly. Whereas in fact, we evolved on it – and we were designed for the climate we evolved in. Once we change it, all bets are off.

By: anthony nolan

anthony nolan — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 07:23:31 +0000

LeftyE. Indeed. How to act. I keep reading here and there of dissatisfaction with how the parties of social democracy are failing us. My view too. Someone commented that the problem for s.d. parties is that their strategic approach is to negotiate a settlement between capital and labour but noted as well that you don’t negotiate with a planet. I also am increasingly coming across calls for mass scale non-violent direct action and general refusnik behaviour as a necessary step by which to encourage the s.d. parties to face up to capital. It seems to me that this is inevitable because the likelihood of those well known philanthropists – coal mine owners – giving up their power, prestige, wealth and luxury is les than zero. It seems to me that a lot of people are waiting for someone to take an effective initiative.

By: Lefty E

Lefty E — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 07:14:15 +0000

That;s right – and its also true that competing theories are adjuged in part by their ability to explain observable phenomena.

For example, how does the “its not happening” school explain the succession of record heatwaves over the last 7 years? Does it even have an explanation? We know that slar radiation is actually at a low cycle, so it aint that. And what of the rise in natural disasters such as cyclones, floooding, widespread fires?

This – alongside the fact that people like Bolt actually have no credibility in the field of climate science – is why one side has won the so-called “debate”.

Now the only question is how to we best act.