I reckon that most journalists around the traps in Australia would agree with the COALition that Copenhagen was a flop, as a result nothing new is happening around the world on climate change mitigation, so if the Gillard Government, influenced by the evil Greens, plans to go it alone that will endanger the economy. Right? Wrong.
They should take a look at what the Europeans are talking about:
Europe is debating whether or not the European Union should increase its 2020 emissions cuts to 30 per cent [from 20 per cent]. A joint statement by the British, French and German environment ministers in favour of 30 per cent set off the debate; Denmark, Ireland and the European Union’s climate commissioner have all now backed the call. Even more remarkably, a group of leading European businesses have publicly stated their support.
(Thanks to John D for the heads-up on this article.)
Three factors are said to be at play.
First, the GFC caused a reduction of 7% in 2009, leaving Europe 17% below 1990 levels, not far from the 20% target.
Secondly, the Roadmap 2050 project report from the European Climate Foundation suggests that:
an 80 per cent cut in Europe’s emissions by 2050 is not just technically feasible, it could be achieved at around the same cost as “business as usual.”
Third, Europe’s large manufacturers see global economic advantage in leading the change to a low carbon economy.
It seems the push is coming from the North and the West, whereas Poland and Italy are leading the recalcitrants.
Coal, of course, is at the heart of the problem and out in the real world there is scrap going on. Germany was blindsided by an EU proposal to close loss-making coal mines by 2014.
Of course closing coal mines doesn’t mean coal will not be burnt. German demand for coal seems set to increase to 2015.
On nukes, Merkel in coalition with the right wing Free Democrats was looking to wind back the planned closure of nuclear power plants. But back in May she had a very bad day when, by a very narrow margin, the conservatives lost the state election in North Rhine-Westphalia, thus losing control of the national upper house. Now she has to negotiate with the opposition on key policies, including tax cuts, health system reforms and nuclear energy.
This is important because Germany will almost inevitably have to do much of the heavy lifting if overall European targets are to be met.
This one is worth watching. Any improvement in ambition on the part of the Europeans could leave the US as the very obvious laggards, undermining their negotiating position with the Chinese.
Monbiot reckons that any true accounting of the UK’s emissions would see a 29% increase, rather than the claimed 19% reduction.
Not one, but two very interesting comments, here.
I think Gillard labor should know from the election that SerfChoices was the one thing that saved their bacon; it epitomised to people why they had voted Rudd labor in 2007; the mere recall of the authoritarianism it spoke to.
The polls are not shifting since the polls, maybe folk will have a little bit of a wakeup by Xmass.
The issue the right has used most often to destabilise labor is enviro, easily highlighted for overt contradictions and insincerity and a weak point for labor.
But labor happily points back, as the oppostion tries to have its cake and eat it also, evidentially, on development and enviro.
If labor mishandles how it deals with “big” enviro, on a couple of fronts as in the past, it will be out of government. Global capital wants its due and blackmails regional governments to acquiesce on development.
But there are too many problems with ecology now, for the thinking public not to be alarmed at the magnitude of these and fail to remember postponed earlier action that is responsible for the increasing magnitude, down to the present.
So polarisation is the contemporary feature, future scenarios less clear now than at times in the past.
Brian, you should also have quoted the next par in that report. It clearly demonstrates the utter futility of an ETS and the inability of “the market” to fix the problem. Of course the market zealots will cry ‘but it was the fault of the GFC” not the market.
Well hey does a bear shit in the woods, the GFC was all about the “market” – same shit different flies. ( Enough of the turd metaphors – I promise).
http://inside.org.au/europe-carbon-choice/
Huggy
Why return to the over all emission rates,when even Liberal Hunt has said “basically get on with the job then”. Must our heads be in Europe who wont give a stuff about Australia’s balance of trade,or much else,like fair competition rules,if by a magnitude process of marketing they reduce the potential of home grown technologies and applications in Australia!? If Copenhagen wasn’t a great piece of co-operation and collaboration,why expect the market mechanisms will be!?As a sort of inventor general designer,I get really sad,that, my obvious limitations, aren’t as bad as some gifted by degrees in engineering and science as they get waffled out by the heads in Europe approach,or Garnaut the only useful words on the subject.It don’t make sense.I guess it is hard to understand how false one’s arguments may seem to others,if, no-one is going to meet your criteria and point of concern,because they find your point not worthy.A an Australian living in Australia ,whilst Monbiot maybe a good source for some,I just cannot understand those references to journalists alone on the matter,of whatever persuasion, improves the clarity of what needs to be done.Surely the choices of what to do ,if this is a serious problem,cannot always be a cheer squad approach for various solutions.I cheer lead matters about EXair Hilsch Vortex Tubes,because,under pressure,myself,to sort of prove a point or position,I see some basic stuff overlooked.For example,recently I found out that Epsom Salts can be used with distilled water to bring very bad batteries back to life.There are new players in Epsom salts.I also know,just by knowing a battery and a bar magnet have many things in common.There are new magnets as there are new batteries.But Damn.Magnets in batteries,or batteries in magnets!Just think about that.Why are Australians just not playing around with these simple notions.Magnetisation today, doesn’t have to exclude product like tubular steel,that maybe stainless steel.Went to a site where a fellow was playing around with stainless steel tubes as dry cell battery running distilled water through it.The matter of just adding a magnetised wire to the array may have allowed the dry cell system to outgas more hydrogen then useful.Just even micro welding 9 volt battery connections to a stainless steel array dry battery design then can have a 9 volt connect within another battery connected..and then play around with various forms of new magnet product.Now being supplied in Australia.And beyond my bloody money resources.So answer the question .When a Battery is doing what a battery is designed for..what happens if you pop inside a battery a number of magnets before hand!?If you know.You have got my sense of applied courage.So kids,at what temperature ranges will a battery surround by magnetic influence enough to push a battery as object operates into actually empower the battery ,in some way,or the magnetic forces at work!?Negative or positive connection of battery and or magnet!?
Paul, the cleavage along political lines doesn’t seem to work the same way in Europe.
Huggy, I’ve put your quote in blockquote. It did occur to me to make a comment, but I knew someone else would.
My attitude is that all markets are human artefacts and ETS systems seem to have to be intensively and extensively designed to meet their objectives, but seem to be blindsided by the real world and then have to be retuned or re-engineered. That’s why my preference is for a direct tax, because it can be varied according to the specific objectives you want to achieve and the effects you want to avoid.
But the rejoinder is that no ETS has yet been properly designed.
What I don’t need is people telling me I just don’t get it, so having said my bit I’ll leave it to others.
p.a.travers, your battery is an inte$ded EVIL! Needs to be cubed?!!
Brian, If i have offended you , i apologise.
No offence was intended.
Perhaps i am a little more aggressive than need be but my aggression was not directed at you.
I am sure that “you get it” my only point of difference here is that I believe that no amount of design will fix the “market”. We share the preference for a straight tax I think.
Huggy
Apart from the effects of the recession, has Europe actually cut omissions at all yet? Last figures I saw showed a rise of 5% between 1997 and 2007 for European CO2 emissions. Targets of 20% let alone 30% are just fantasies.
But why isnt p.a.travers on Gillards committee?? He sure has the technical knowledge.
Huggybunny,
So carbon emissions have collapsed and are now well below what was targeted by the ETS?
What a complete disaster! Stupid markets! Stupid bears!
I&U: the problem is not that emissions have gone down, it’s that the ETS was designed to allow those non-emissions to be “banked”, so we’re now in for a period of low prices followed by a surge once the banked emissions run out. That’s exactly the way the market should work, it’s just that many people will consider it to be a bad thing when it does (viz, other prices surge along with emissions prices, people lose their jobs, economies collapse and so on). As we’ve seen, stuff like that is considered “market failure” and huge amounts of tax dollars are “required” to fix it. The motto being, of course “privatise the profits, socialise the losses”.
Moz
Yep, it is clear that the European ETS has failed, it was clearly unable to withstand the collapse of another market (Junk bonds).
A well structured impost/tax credit/R&D subsidy scheme should work, what we do not need are point of sale subsidies for the middle class or absurd feed in tariffs.
Huggy
I am sure the mention of my name above was both kindly observant and above all hands on.Which part of my anatomy the associated hands of the bloggers would shove forward I can only speculate.I reject completely the Gillard government’s right to govern,form committee and then impale all those who find her and the ALP totally obnoxious.Thus,I repeat.The stuff coming out of coal fired power stations isn’t the drama some make it out to be.And all this crap about pricing CO2 comes in the void of not even trying to find any validity in the simple question”why isn’t it as useful as other gases!?”Geo seq and Bioseque. are compatible.No one is even contemplating or forcing research by opinion in regards clean coal,what can be done without all those taxpayer millions$.I go along with all those matters of concern re water use and mine location.But surely,truly,to sound like Kenneally, carbon dioxide can be seen as a thought experiment to be a component of a large very large battery.What else are all these cycles in nature about if not precisely that.Look at the phenomena involved in these gas and water emission cycles.What is the upper atmosphere but in some way continually a ionised or magnetized reality.Soil itself has a electro potential,that varies because of soil type etc.Even the notion of using the mechanical power of CO2 ,which had its tradition in direct lift,has not been even considered re:where power stations are now.And what of direct applications of CO2 to tree roots and farm production.Paint that then becomes plasticiser to stop rivers leaking,crystals that utilize CO2 not investigated.The property of the gas under various encapsulated processes,not investigated.On it goes.And you people have the hide to believe the political and industrial sector are the problem.They aren’t.Its your lack of wanting to put a waste material process to work..by nutting out what could be done with CO2.So.What happens to CO2 under rapidly changing temperature influences.Salt fired at it.Spun,pressured with molasses ,methylated spirits vinegar at high speed centrifugal rates.Centripedal rates.Through existing beer manufacturing processes but even more pressure and temperature rapid inversions.Pumped into the sewerage system. CO2 in water back to power station. Geo sequester as sewerage outlet.Hole in the ground approach with micro magnetite particles down in the process.Hit with high temperatures,pressurized with doped chemicals.Chlorine at high spin low temperatures.Hit by an impact of Magnesium Sulphate.Why dont you want to be adult and realise,all these experts are clowns.
Brian. I take it that Angela Merkel’s decision to extend the life to 2035? of some German nuclear power plants is as a result of the recent election losses to the Free Democrats?
There’s a bit of irony in that result when you compare the German response to the recent Australian election. The Rudd/Gillard stalling on a weak ETS now has to confront a Green ascendancy that probably means a stronger ETS in quicker time. Timing is everything it seems and the prospect of a hybrid – tax and cap – in Australia may have its attractions elsewhere – in time. But a pity we have to wait now till 2012 for Gillard to move on anything.
Huggybunny @11
Junk bonds?
The interesting thing to note is that the bit that has worked both here and the EU has has been the “put a price on clean” approach in the form of feed in tariffs. Market based approaches that try and control to caps and targets have run into problems with the credit price being too low to drive any serious investment.
Feed in tariffs are working because they are giving investors certainty. ETS and REC are struggling because it is anyone’s guess what will happen to credit prices over the life of a power plant. The credit prices are just too sensitive to how capacity compares with the caps/targets.
Much better to get on with it and use competitive tendering for contracts to give investors confidence without paying excessive prices.
Any suggestion that Australia acts on its own will invite the the big “we’ll all be rooned” lie. While we stuff around with putting a price on carbon and all the other crap instead of getting on with it it will be easy for the Abbott’s of the world to sell the big lie because it is just too hard to work out what the effect will really be.
A few facts that may help combat the lie:
1. The ABS reported that green house gas emissions rose 16% in the 10 years to 550 mt CO2 equivalent for 2008. (Excluding land use and forestry) On this basis:
Per capita emissions=25 tonnes/yr
Per capita cost of a $10/tonne carbon tax=$250/yr
=$0.68/day
2. Per capita emissions for energy=19 tonnes/yr
Per capita cost of a $10/tonne carbon tax=$190/yr
=$0.52/day
3. Last time I looked our total per capita power consumption was 10,000 kWh/yr. On this basis:
Per capita cost of a one cent/kWh cost increase=$100/yr
=$0.27/day
4. A $10 carbon tax would add a bit over one cent/kWh to the cost of power from black coal.
5. The figures I have seen suggest that replacing coal fired with CCGT would be justified by a price increase below 2 cents/kWh.
Incurious and Unread
Bit flip but I understand that the GFC was precipitated by the packaging and resale of all those worthless mortgages -not strictly junk bonds- but near enough.
John D.
Feed in tariffs do work, but I am not sure that they necessarily drive the right sort of investment. They are driving a massive growth in small scale PV systems. However there are emerging network problems due to these.
Huggy
Huggy @ 7, no offense, I’m agreeing with you. When I said this:
I was referring to anticipated comment from other quarters.
pablo @ 13, I’d have to check to be sure, but I think that the decision to phase out German nuclear power plants was taken about a decade ago by the SPD in coalition with The Greens. I think Merkel has always wanted to reverse this decision, but from 2005 governed in the ‘Grand coalition’ with the SPD, who wouldn’t agree.
In 2009 she was able to dump the SPD in favour of the Free Democrats. As expected, she moved to extend the life of the nukes, but I don’t think she got the legislation through. Now she has to contend with the SPD and the Greens in the upper house. So she’s stuck.
Like I always say Brian, the Australian press is bleedin uselss on this score, lacks any comparative perspective whatsoever, and anyone who thinks this issue is going nowhere globally has been taken for a ride by the censors.
Bit like the donkey on Animal farm. Ot whatever.
LE, except that on another level things aren’t going anywhere much according to wilful’s linked article from Monbiot.
On the EU ETS:
So, apart from The Maldives
I’m wondering if things aren’t on the move. It seems that the massive EuroAfrican Desertec programme that was announced some time back with an expenditure commitment of then 660 billion dollars, involving many of the European heavy weight industries such as Siemens, may be on the move if a jibe that I recieved from the BNC mob is related (I suspect that it is). But on the home front in Manufacturing Engineering News I see an article about Canberra based Wizard Power who are gearing up to manufacture up to 500Mw installed capacity parabolic reflectors for thermal CSP per year. I imagine that they have a customer and are not doing this on spec.
Brian @ 20
Any accounting system for carbon needs to account for cross border trade. Otherwise some countries (predictably the rich ones) will find some mechanism for getting other countries (the poor ones) to wear the carbon emissions.
So, for example, if Australia has a lot of emissions in producing iron ore and transporting it to China, when most of the final product might end up elsewhere, should that emission in Australia producing the iron ore be ascribed to Australia, or to those countries that finally use the finished products?
Ie should there be an accounting for carbon emissions in the same way as a VAT with the final accounting being with the final user?
Huggy @17: The point I was making is that putting a price on clean in the form of feed in tariffs has been very effective at driving investment in solar PV because it gives investor certainty. Achieving the same result by using a carbon tax to “put a price on dirty” would have led to serious jump in the average price of electricity compared with the minimal effect feed in tariffs have had to date.
My problem with both feed in tariffs and carbon taxes is that you have to second guess how big they have to be to get the desired result.
This is why I keep rabbiting on about the desirability of contracts for the supply of cleaner electricity. Competitive tendering helps minimize price increases.
To some extent feed in tariffs and carbon taxes tend to be “all or nothing”. This makes it hard to limit the rate of investment once the tariff/tax is high enough to get some investment started.
People also tend to forget that dirty power producers will absorb a lot of carbon tax in order to avoid making cleaner power competitive. For capital intensive activities such as power generation it only makes sense to shut a power station down when there are no profits before tax and interest charges.
JohND
I think I agree about competitive tendering.
Marks @ 22, I think we need to think a lot more about carbon accounting and the notion that poorer countries have the right to pollute their way to prosperity.
BilB @ 22, I’ve been thinking too that new norms of behaviour are being established. We need Monbiot’s reality check, but for an eloquent alternative you could do worse than have a listen to Richard Fidler’s conversation with Tim Flannery today.
John D @ 23, I don’t disagree, but I would outlaw undesirable behaviour in terms of new power generation capacity.
Also if dosh is needed for expensive projects like building a smart network, which I suspect will cost more than the $1 billion Gillard has allocated over 10 years, I’d look to a tax on sin.
John D @23,
I agree that contracts are very effective, but they are not very efficient. That is, you get the emissions reductions delivered, but at a high cost.
There are lots of problems with government tendering: picking winners, poor government-side negotiating skills, sovereign risk, political favouritism, limited participation etc. etc.
Many power markets went down the contracting (“PPA”) route initially (eg Queensland) and, AIUI, all have been highly inefficient. Competitive tendering (in power markets) is one of those ideas that in theory should work in practice, but in practice doesn’t.
The electricity pricing issue that you keep pushing is a furphy and has been dealt with on another thread. Firstly, the carbon tax revenue can be used to compensate electricity consumers. Secondly, you can arrange an ETS to avoid large electricity price increases (eg Frontier Economics proposal).
Hi Brian @ 25.
My comments were not aimed at justifying poor countries polluting themselves to prosperity.
More that the rich (as always) seem to be manipulating the numbers in ways that disadvantage those poor countries.
For example, should not the EU, having destroyed most of its great forests, account for that in the overall story? At the very least, acknowledge the extra carbon in the atmosphere as a result of that when negotiating?
I guess I am saying that in setting targets for reduction, let’s not allow transfer of carbon liabilities away from those who ultimately are the consumers, and let’s not allow those who have removed their carbon sinks to just ignore that rather salient fact in the overall scheme of things.
At the very least, it gives a better picture of what is the real situation, and those poor countries which are not stupid enough to fall for the moralising creative carbon accounting of rich nations will at least feel that negotiations are being undertaken in good faith. Without true figures at the negotiating tables on this, there is no good faith bargaining, and every reason therefore for the disadvantaged to resist agreement.
Brian: It is absurd for the government to be considering approving the construction of more coal fired power stations unless sequestration is really part of the deal and/or the power station is being built to consume carbonaceous wastes or byproducts of coking coal production that are not suitable for export. We should also be looking at things like cement and steel production to see whether it is worth putting a cap on emissions from new plants.
However, there is no reason why we should have to wait until the whole emissions reduction plan is developed before starting on the work required to do the things that we know we have to do in the short to medium term.
Recent increases in the price of power are being justified by the need to repair/upgrade the power grid. It doesn’t seem unreasonable to use the same approach to to financing the conversion to a smart network. Bilb may be able to shine some expertize on what is involved but my understanding is that this is more about introducing sophisticated controls rather than major capital works or changes to operating costs.
I&U@27: I have spent most of my working life in the mining and construction industry and have been heavily involved in both contract mining/processing and construction contracts. So I found your assertion that
a bit quaint.
The first point is that all the alternatives we are talking about are simply means of getting contracts set up for the supply of cleaner electricity.
The second point is that government contracts can be costly if they are handled by the bureaucracy or keeping Tony Windsor happy is one of the key selection criteria. They can also be costly if they are used in inappropriate situations. However, the logical way to handle contracts for the supply of clean electricity is to do this via a government corporation manned by people with the right expertise with the normal corporate separation from political considerations.
JohnD@29,
This is a comment that I posted on the Greens website, then I noticed the dates. It doesn’t appear to be bieng updated at present and the thread I was commenting on was a July thread. But the comment is self explanatory ( a little repetitious after other comments that I have made, but here it is..it may speak to your comment…
“What the……..
[this first bit is an extract from the thread]
“Another option which is recommended by the Energy Efficiency Council is simply to require the electricity network operators to divert 10 per cent of the more than $40 billion they plan to spend over the next five years on the grid, to demand side measures. The EEC argue that network operators that fail to deliver this level of investment in demand-side measures in 2010-2012 should have a levy placed on their regions, which an independent body would invest in energy efficiency to offset network expansion and reduce their customers’ bills”
Has nobody bothered to do some simple arithmetic on what these numbers mean???
With the retail rate at 20cents per unit now, a 20% increase on the national electricity consumption of 260 billion Kwhs amounts to $10.4 billion dollars additional revenue for the electricity industry each year. If electricity rates rise by 40% then that amounts to $20.8 billion dollars per year. So if the industry wants to spend 40 billion dollars that will be recovered in 4 or 2 years. So what happens then? Are rates going to back to normal??
As I have been at pains to point out to government over the last few years a one off 20% levy on retail electricity rates is all that is required to rebuild the entire stationary energy sector with renewable infrastructure. Such a levy would be held in a fund and competitively tendered for access by private industry operators. By this method both market methods and private industry are used to efficiently rebuild a new renewable energy infrastructure in an efficient manner.
What have we achieved so far? With false government signals to IPART who in turn gave upward pricing signals to the industry a huge industry slush fund has been created with absolutely no requirement to achieve anything. We now have the absolutely worst of everything. And with further freedom to increase prices and still no impediment to taking the money and running the industry is certain to take advantage of this. I fully expect that we will soon see the strongest players using their suddenly improved cash positions to start buying up the smaller electricity generators. No increase in capacity or reduction in CO2 emissions, just bigger electricity distributors converging on monopoly.
And the worst of the worst of the worst aspects to this is that the government is not going to admit what a ballsup they have created, because A they don’t fully understand what has happened, and B because if they did understand it they are not going to admit what they have done.
And if it could get any worse it will. We are heading into the perfect economic storm with oil per barrel at $85 (seen as a recession trigger point) and Peak Oil upon us right now. Nobody notices because the strong Aussie Dollar is keeping pump prices low. SOMETHING IS GOING TO BREAK HERE IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE. If and when it does and pump prices leap upwards at the same time as the electricity industry has its wicked way with retail electricity prices we could very well achieve the recession bullet that we dodged through the stimulus package implementation. If that combination comes up and does trigger a recession then paying back the stimulus borrowings could become a very protracted affair. And our CO2 emission rates will not have improved at all.
If I haven’t already said it……….WHAT A BALLS UP”
______________________________________________
Now I am a product designer not an electricity industry person, so I see things from the consumer’s point of view and for the nature of the unprecedented problem that is arising for consumers. As a product designer and product developer I have, with my main business partner, conceptualised the product that we have dubbed for the time being, GenIIPV. This is a solar energy product that circumvents the entire domestic energy supply problem to achieve a zero energy cost for domestic and small business users for all of their energy needs. This is a truly beautiful solution to the coming future energy dilema facing us all. And the higher the cost of the electricity and the petrol that it is replacing, the faster the system is paid off, and the higher the on going advantage to the user, not to mention the greater the value that the system adds to the users’s property value. Sometimes in problem solving all of the forces line up in the same direction to provide one powerful effect. This is one of those times.
So in answer to your comment I am relatively disinterested in the grid industry’s problems because I am fully certain that the GenIIPV concept will achieve an explosive uptake once all of its design elements are resolved and it will in the future supply at least 50% of all of Australia’s electricity needs. In the so doing it is going to totally mess up the grid’s stability. As the BNC brigade point out a solar system will be on when the sun is shining and off when not. In between there needs to be something else to bridge the gap. The thing is that GenIIPV does not care from its own users point of view as it completely provides for their immediate needs under all circumstances when fully developed. But the grid connection aspect of the product will create energy mayhem across the broader system. Fortunately it will take quite some years before the installed capacity of GenIIPV will have sufficient delivery to start to skew the grid’s stability.
So the real issue, and this is the only reason why I have bothered to talk openly about our concept at all, is what will the electricity industry instal in the face of global warming, carbon taxes, and climate change. If the system has a generous slab of Hydro, geothermal and thermal CSP, then there will be sufficient flexibility to cope with the way that wind power and GenIIPV will contribute future energy to the broader grid.
From my point of view if all of the above is not understood and taken into account then there is no way that network infrastructure installed today is going to be appropriate for the manner that electricty will be generated 15 to 20 years from now.
That is certinly logical, but will it happen like that? Or perhaps it will happen like this?
I&U: It certainly wont happen like that if we are talking about competitive tendering for the supply of cleaner electricity or the reduction of greenhouse emissions in general for that matter. Cash for clunkers and similar stupidity like the examples quoted above is what happens when governments are looking for gimmicks to demonstrate that they are serious.
I have no problem with rules that insist that the cost per tonne emission reduction be calculated before any project to reduce emissions is supported. My problem is with the use of a price on dirty to drive change.
Thanks BILB. Sounds like a right stuff-up. Also sounds like a good reason to use grid friendly CCGT with variable compressor blades as the main tool for short term emissions reduction in the power industry.