« profile & posts archive

This author has written 83 posts for Larvatus Prodeo.

Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

83 responses to “Climate Change Emo Watch”

  1. danny

    Scheme will still hurt us, say miners”: Queensland Resources Council chief executive Michael Roche, Dec 15.

  2. Peter Wood

    There was quite a bit of whingeing from Woodside Petroleum and their Emo CEO Don Voelte. It worked too – they managed to qualify as an EITE and have access to the trough of free permits. Here is a small selection of their whinging…

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/18/2307156.htm
    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,24491292-36418,00.html
    http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/20080828/woodside-says-aussie-co2-plan-threatens-lng-project.htm
    http://www.fluidhandling.com.au/Article/Woodside-demands-emissions-trading-scheme-compensation-for-LNG/431134.aspx

    The sad thing is, if Woodside really was serious about how emissions trading would affect their business, they could relocate to East Timor, but hang on, they ruled that out…

    http://in.reuters.com/article/governmentFilingsNews/idINSYD8149020080731

  3. pablo

    It is interesting to hear about all the problems an ETS will bring to the Queensland cement industry. I wonder if any readers can confirm that Queensland cementers – perhaps even the three multinational investors that Sen. Boswell is so concerned about for Gladstone – still use old vehicle tyres to fire their limestone curing kilns. It used to be the case that southern states could dispose of their used tyres by trucking them north. Even if this practise has now been superceded, I would hesitate to place much value on Queenslander cementers whinging about carbon trading.

  4. professor rat

    An uncontrolled climate change debate could be devastating to all Marxist – Leninist ideological imperialism .
    This is an industry predicated on production worship, statism and economic-determinism.
    They will need a lot of bail-out funding just to tread water in this hostile environment.

  5. dk.au

    Thanks Peter… I’m in two minds about keeping track of the shite the Opposition Organ publishes. On the one hand, most of it ticks the boxes listed above; on the other, … I have to read the damn stuff.

    pablo, thanks for that annecdote – I wasn’t aware that they were burning old tyres! There are some serious environmental efficiency gains to be had…

  6. danny

    Dk: “serious environmental efficiency gains to be had” ( by cementers)…
    At the risk of being scolded again, but there is no where else here to place a good eco-news cement manufacture story.

    Imagine if they were serious, and took something like this to market: from The Inventors

    Eco-Cement incorporates magnesium oxide.. uses a lower heating temperature during manufacturing, so less fossil fuels are used..absorbs C02 from the atmosphere to set and harden and can be recycled.

  7. Adrien

    Scheme will still hurt us, say miners”

    Well – d’uh!

  8. charles
  9. huggybunny

    Pablo et al: Cement manufacture releases about 4% of total global CO2 emissions. They are intrinsic to the process. CaCO3 + heat = CaO + CO2 – to a crude approximation.
    However most of the heat can be recovered and used to generate electricity; amazingly this is not a mandated process. In fact the Australian government is funding a program to incorporate electricity generation into Chinese cement manufacturing plants. The next biggy is steel production. It is one thing to sequester Carbon in steel (that’s what steel is) it’s another to use coal (carbon) to reduce iron oxide (ore) to iron.
    30 years ago I worked on the direct reduction of Iron ore to iron (powder) the physics and chemistry are well understood and it is a far more energy efficient and lower CO2 emitting process than the current methods (200 years old). In fact given a supply of Hydrogen it can be entirely CO2 free. No I am not advocating the fuken Hydrogen economy – it is horses for courses. No way do I want fuken hydrogen around my house or down my street thanks.
    Huggy

  10. Emily

    Pablo

    Cement Australia in Gladstone Qld, uses a solvent based liqued fuel and scrap car tyres as a substitute to their main fuel, coal:

    http://www.cemaust.com.au/driver.asp?page=main/operations/manufacturing%20operations/gladstone%2C%20queensland

    Blue Circle Victoria uses 1.5 million used tyres annually and waste oil to substitute other fossil fuel use. That’s a real toxic soup and an ideal breeding place for dioxins, not least, in fly ash – particularly when Australia’s maximum permitted emissions for the cement industry exceeds those of the EU. Even Brazil’s maximum allowable emissions for dust are 77mg/m3 where Australia permits 100 mg/m3.

    Similarly the EU permits 800 mg/m3 for NOx, for existing plants and 500 mg/m3 for new plants. Australia permits 940 mg/m3 for NOx though I’ve yet to see any proper enforcement of these guidelines and of course guidelines are unenforceable unless they are written into the Conditions of Licence.

    If the regulatory system in Australia has altered over the last couple of years, I’d appreciate someone advising me or do pollutant industries continue to control their hazardous emissions by “persuasion” only?

    http://209.85.175.132/search?q=cache:RMOHuBRTCUsJ:www.boral.com.au/Annual_Reports/reports/HTML_Annual_2005/s-cement.asp%3FAUD%3DCommunityEnvironment%26site%3DCI+limestone+cement+kilns+australia+used+tyres+fuel&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=15&gl=au

    No wonder Australia and the US have a reputation as the bad boys!

  11. dk.au

    14 Jan 09 – Environmentalism is like Nazism. File under ‘Barnaby’s Choices’.

  12. Robert Merkel

    dk: interesting.

    We’ve (rightly, in my view) decried the government’s pissweak ETS as a political wedge.

    On that level, it seems to be working just fine.

  13. dk.au

    Indeed Robert – I’ve drawn out the broader points from Barnaby’s spray in a post here

  14. dk.au
  15. Paul Burns

    I was under the impression (since I don’t take Andrew Bolt seriously) that there was just as mich scientific evidence for global warming as there is historical evidence for the Holocaust. Barnaby’s emotive language is nonsense. What is it about RWDBs that they seem incapable of assessing evidence on CC that contradicts their a prori assumptions.
    Hey, you can’t eat cement any more than you can eat money. When our agricultural areas become non-productive, and the food we grow to eat dies,because of CC, maybe we’ll realise that. Too late.

  16. David Irving (no relation)

    I don’t think there’s any chance that a clean coal project would succeed under any circumstances, dk.au. I think technical infeasability trumps the consequences (or not) of an emmissions trading scheme every time.

  17. dk.au
  18. Yaz

    There will be ‘premature retirement of [coal-fired power] plants’ according to Ms Savage from the link in #17

    Yes, Ms Savage, I think that is the point of the CPRS. It’s not a climate pollution reward scheme, though at times it does look like that…

  19. dk.au
  20. dk.au
  21. Lefty E

    Gawd – could the mining and forestry industries of this country hire any fewer people? What does Gunn’s of Tas hire? 12 blokes and a dog? Im only exaggerating slightly. The idea that shifting our enrgy base will elad to a net loss of jobs is a JOKE. A net increase is far more likely – which incidentially,is why industry opposes it. It will create too much employment.

    In any case, our coal industry is 75% export-only so you could shut down every coal-fired station in the nation and the industry would still kick on.

    But YES: get your head around this, jobs WILL be lost in unsustainable industries. Thats the whole point. Thats a GOOD thing. They will created in new ones which wont kill us all off in the long run. Maybe they’ll even pay their submerged costs. Im sick of big polluters expecting Joe Public to pick up their costs. Stand on your own feet costs-wise and then we’ll see how “efficient” you are at producing energy. Let the market truly decide.

  22. dk.au

    “Even in the most benign circumstances, the (emissions trading scheme) is effectively a tax on investment and growth,” said Virgin Blue general manager Simon Thorpe”
    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25085266-11949,00.html

  23. Peter Wood

    “THE cement industry has accused the federal Government of being “fork tongued” after learning it would qualify for fewer free permits under the emissions trading scheme than it had been led to believe.”

    White paper is no concrete deal for cement industry, Rentseekers Review, February 21, 2009

  24. wizofaus

    That an ETS is a tax on investment/growth is pretty indisputable – which is one reason why there’s a good case for offsetting it with reduction in other taxes (in particular corporate tax rates). However, of course, the cost of not reducing CO2 emissions is far higher than doing so, so an effective (hence global) ETS should be a significant money saver in the long run, even without other tax adjustments.

  25. Peter Wood

    Emissions scheme will cut competitiveness: BlueScope, ABC Online

    Added to the current downturn in steel demand worldwide, BlueScope Steel’s chief executive officer, Paul O’Malley, says the Government’s carbon emissions scheme could reduce its competitiveness.

    “We will be incurring a cost base that may move us away from being world-class in cost competitiveness that may restrict our ability, particularly in these challenging times to sell steel,” he said.

    Why are they worried? I thought they had a special deal where the NSW government would pay for their emissions?

  26. Peter Wood

    Tensions boil over on climate change, The Age

    Senator Ron Boswell, concerned that emissions trading will cost jobs, lashed out at the bureaucrat after he tried to say the cement industry would not be decimated by the scheme.

    “You are a bureaucrat that’s never been in the market in your life,” Senator Boswell barked.

    Senator Boswell said the bureaucrat, Dr Martin Parkinson from the Department of Climate Change, should not be overriding the concerns of steel and cement companies.

  27. Peter Wood

    Yesterday it was BlueScope Steel, last week it was the cement industry, today it was the turn of coal fired electricity generators to emote about carbon pricing and how much debt they have.

    Some would think that with all of the handouts in the White Paper, emissions intensive industries would quieten down a bit. This is not the case — the marginal benefits of whinging rent-seeking have not decreased significantly.

  28. Peter Wood

    Heather Ridout again Business wants emissions trading delayed, The Age, February 26, 2009

    The rent-seekers seem to have gotten louder over the past week or so.

  29. dk.au

    Thanks Peter. Busy week for emoters…

  30. dk.au

    Emissions trading spells disaster for farmers: MP

    “Whether you’re producing wool or beef, sheep meat or dairy, it’s going to have a catastrophic [effect] on those industries without any compensation whatsoever to the agriculture sector” said Federal MP for Barker Patrick Secker

  31. dk.au

    Carbon scheme should start in 2012 – Heather Ridout in The Age

    Boy, there’s either a skills shortage or a credit shortage. Those poor managers just can’t catch a break!

    Coming soon: LP Climate Emo Bingo! GFC Edition

  32. Peter Wood

    Meanwhile is worried that if it introduces and ETS, there will be carbon leakage from New Zealand to Australia because our targets will be much weaker.

    Carbon scheme changes mulled.

  33. dk.au

    heh. we own most of NZ anyway.

  34. NatureAdvice

    It is interesting to hear about all the problems an ETS will bring in all fields..
    By the way, for your readers interested in funding for climate change ideas. Check out http://www.justmeans.com/challenge/climate Four winners will receive $200,000 each to pursure their ‘Changing Climate Change’ idea. This initiative is being run by Green Mountain Coffee Roasters.

  35. dk.au

    Scullion says emissions trading scheme will scare off Inpex – ABC

  36. dk.au

    ETS dangerous to dirtiest coal fired power plant in the world, hence whole Economy! – Interview with TRUenergy’s Richard Indoe at Business Spectator

  37. dk.au

    Rudd’s Hot Air Solution – Alan Kohler’s hysterical follow up commentary on interview.

    “…uncertainty about subsidies after 2015 will result in the bankruptcy and probable closure of the Latrobe Valley coal-fired power stations in 2015.”

    Yeah keep going with those predictions/rent-seeker spruikings buddy.

  38. dk.au
  39. dk.au

    Energy industry warns of blackout – Rentseeker’s Review

    A survey by the Energy Supply Association of Australia has found the sector will need to find $100 billion over the next five years for refinancing, essential upgrades and new investments in low-emission generation to comply with the emissions trading scheme and new renewable energy targets.

  40. dk.au

    Keane in Crikey today:

    in the manner of saving the best until last, the most outrageous demand emerged yesterday from the Electricity Supply Association, which used an “industry survey” to conflate the impact of the financial crisis and a recent decision by the Australian Energy Regulator on rates of returns as the basis for demanding even more free permits under the ETS than the industry is already getting.

    It’s a big effort to top the special pleading and the self-serving “modelling” offered by most of the country’s major polluters and their peak bodies like the Minerals Council, but ESAA managed it easily.

    “Electricity generators estimated they will need additional credit facilities to finance over $20 billion worth of emission permits in the period to 2014,” the survey concluded.

    “Increasing the initial allocation of permits to coal-fired generators will not subsidise them or keep them in production any longer than necessary,” ESAA CEO Clare Savage said.

    Perhaps Ms Savage might care to look up the meaning of “subsidise”. And while she’s got the dictionary open she could check on “magic pudding”. Between all the extra compensation demanded by polluters, the revenue from the ETS would be allocated two or three times over.

    It gets better:

    Under the ETS, the Government will hand over nearly $4b over five years to electricity generators. The biggest beneficiary of this bonanza will be the UK firm International Power, which will pocket more than $1b from Australian taxpayers courtesy of the ETS. Hong Kong’s CLP Power International will trouser nearly three-quarters of a billion dollars. The NSW Government will get nearly $400m. The Queensland Government will get over $100m.

    The most remarkable statement from ESAA, however, was Ms Savage’s claim that “coal-fired generation assets were built at a time when there was no cost on greenhouse gas emissions and no clear prospect of when or how such a cost might be introduced.” This is either staggering ignorance or a blatant lie. At least seven coal-fired generators have been built in the last decade alone. How many more have been built since the Kyoto Protocol? How many have been bought and sold in recent years in Victoria?

  41. Peter Wood

    Senate committee hearings are broadcasting live here.

  42. Peter Wood

    oops wrong thread for the previous comment…

    There was a bunch of stuff on the ESAA rentseeking exercise in the April 14 AFR too. Quotes someone from Rio Tinto saying that the CPRS will “cost jobs”. One thing that I find really annoying about much of the media coverage of these exercises is that the journalists don’t bother to ask any independent economists or policy experts or environmentalists about the validity of these claims.

  43. Brian

    Yes, Peter, in the front page AFR article they were not only threatening jobs, but the lights were said to go off in NSW specifically, with the suggestion that a Ruddbank style facility be set up to provide the $100 billion they reckon they need for refinancing and new investment in the next few years.

  44. Peter Wood

    It reminds me of the financial crisis. The generators make bad invsestment decisions by building brown coal fired power stations – assuming that nothing will be done about climate change – and doing their best to make sure nothing is done about climate change. When something is done about climate change 30 years after they first knew about the problem, the firms want to be bailed out with cheap loans – and are still doing their best to ensure that as little as possible is done about the problem.

  45. Brian

    Peter, I think this is why Hansen is targeting the coal industry directly. He says ETS initiative have been a demonstrable failure, so go for a tax.

    Forget percentage reduction targets and just go for the main culprit. The combination of percentage targets and relying on the market through ETS just gives scope for playing the games that big industry is so good at with paid lobbyists, PR spin, and ignorant journalist processing copy at the rate of knots to serve the commercial interests of the corporate MSM.

  46. dk.au

    Ford fears ETS will drive jobs out of Australia – Rentseeker’s Review:

    BlueScope, OneSteel, Rio Tinto, Alcoa, Chevron, Woodside Energy and Visy have long pushed for changes or delays to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, citing its impact on jobs at a time of economic crisis.

    But Ford Australia’s submission to a Senate inquiry into the ETS marks its strongest call yet for caution on the scheme. “It is difficult to precisely quantify the impact, but it would well be in the annual order of many millions of dollars via increased energy costs,” it said.

    Wow. I hope my Senate submission makes headlines too!

  47. Peter Wood

    From Carbon+Environment Daily:

    In its submission on the draft trading bills, APPEA says the legislation should be changed to give the LNG industry more permits – enough to cover all its direct emissions and offset all scheme-related energy and feedstock price increases.

    But the association, which represents the upstream oil and gas industry, also takes umbrage at the draft legislation’s use of the term “free” permits to describe any handouts it receives from the Government without any charge.

    “References to ‘free’ permits should be removed and replaced by ‘administratively allocated’,” APPEA says.

  48. dk.au

    Wong fails to name single ETS backer

    Seems like as good a note as any on which to conclude Climate Change Emo Watch.

    Thanks to everyone who participated – particularly Peter Wood

  49. dk.au

    A bit late to the party, but a worthy inclusion:

    Carbon plan will cost jobs: steel boss – Rentseeker’s Review

  50. Peter Wood

    Thanks for setting up the Emo Watch dk.au, it is a useful record of much of the recent nonsense from business that we have seen, which is playing a major role in undermining climate policy.

    On Bluescope Steel, I find it ironic that they are complaining about the CPRS, I thought they stitched up a deal with the NSW government so that NSW will pay for their emissions, in exchange for Bluescope setting up a steel cogeneration plant in Port Kembla.

  51. dk.au

    End of Emo?

    ETS Won’t Cost Jobs: Coalition Study – Business Spectator

    The federal opposition commissioned the Centre for International Economics to assess the government’s proposed emissions trading scheme (ETS).

    The centre found there has not been enough research done on the impact of the ETS, nor on alternatives.

    The ETS would cost jobs at first in emissions-intensive industries, the study found. But in the long run the labour market would “return to equilibrium” although real wages would be lower.

    That’s a startling conclusion about the EITEs considering they’ll actually get a windfall profit from the scheme for BAU technology improvements (contrary to what the government asserts). Am looking to get hold of the report but can’t download it from the CIE site…

    Recall Brendan Nelson back in Aug 2008 . I’d be more tempted to conclude that Emo has won, rather than lost.
    Update: http://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/05/06/the-pearce-review-the-liberals-cprs-report/

  52. dk.au

    11 May 2009 – Senate Select Committee on Fuel and Energy Interim Report Here’s a flavour:

    Recommendation 9
    5.114 The committee recommends that the CPRS EITE assistance measures:
    (a) be reviewed to consider providing assistance on a production basis;
    (b) be maintained at commencement levels until Australia’s major competitors face comparable carbon costs; and
    (c) not exclude the coal mining industry.

    Recommendation 14
    7.88 The committee recommends that the government properly inform the community how the scheme will impact them and advise of actions they can take to reduce the cost impost of the scheme.

    Recommendation 18
    9.63 The committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government explore the feasibility, advantages and disadvantages of producing nuclear power in Australia, as a means of reducing domestic emissions and providing energy security for Australia into the future.

  53. dk.au

    Nats will say no to emissions scheme – news.com.au

    Senator Joyce said the Nationals would not support an ETS in any form.

    “No, no, no, no, no,” he said.

    The only benefactors from the scheme would be the “wonderful” people in stockbroking houses, he said, while producers, including miners and farmers, would ultimately go out of business due to the plan’s excessive costs.

    “We’re making those who don’t pass any export dollars wealthy and making those who do make us export dollars broke,” he said.

  54. dk.au

    Carbon plan will cause jobs carnage – Mitch Hooke in the Opposition Organ

  55. Brian

    dk.au, the Oz reported the Minerals Council as saying:

    The CPRS scheme will shed 23,510 jobs in the minerals sector by 2020 and more than 66,000 by 2030.

    This turned out to be a lie, as Tony Maher from the CFMEU points out:

    If [you] look at [the] detail of the report, it shows that the Queensland mining industry will grow 120 per cent between now and 2030, and by 60 per cent in New South Wales. So that’s an awful lot more jobs and what they’re saying is that there’ll be less growth under an emissions trading scheme than there would be if there was none.

    Earlier in the day the ABC had been repeating the Minerals Council lie. But tonight in the news bulletins they got it right on TV as well as radio.

  56. dk.au
  57. Peter Wood
  58. dk.au

    “I can see the beginning of an environmental campaign saying that beef is really bad for the environment and it’s starting to get out into more mainstream literature.

    “The problem for the beef industry is that even if they have a successful argument, the public relations problem is quite a big one, so that’s where I think agriculture needs to become a bit more involved and look for some of the better news stories out there.”

    Interesting acknowledgement – especially given how feverishly the Kiwis are working on sheep fart abatement technologies; a The Global Farting Cow Institute can’t be too far off.

  59. dk.au

    Coal company claims emissions trading scheme favours eastern states – http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/200905/s2583101.htm

  60. Brian

    dk.au, it’s burping, not farting, or if you want to be technical enteric fermentation.

    Peter W murph said a bit here and I think Quiggin had a go at it recently too. It’s really recycling carbon, but I think the problem comes from methane being so much more potent than CO2, so it’s a greenhouse booster.

    The maths in Prof John Rolfe’s piece indicates that he rates methane 21 times as strong as CO2. But it really should be 70 times or more.

    dk.au the Kiwis might be good at spruiking what they do, but it seems we are doing quite a bit.

  61. dk.au

    No doubt, Brian. Thanks for the link…

    Revealed: Rudd’s $500m coal compensation fund – AM

  62. dk.au

    States should get compo under ETS Sky News – Greens argue that Hospitals, Schools and Universities deserve compensation under the scheme.

    Govt to investigate ETS worries AFR

    “The Rudd government has ordered a high-level inquiry by a top investment bank to test claims by electricity generators that the emissions trading scheme could cause them financial distress and lead to major disruption in the national energy market”

  63. BilB

    Well, I’m sending a letter to the Prime Minister next week to point out that I am going to be severely disadvantaged by the ETS, and I should be compensated.

    And why not?? Everybody else is!!!

  64. Yaz

    Dunno if this counts, but there was an opinion piece in the Sunday Age today about the feed-in tariffs by an ‘energy company consultant’ (I think). She was claiming that feed-in tariffs are simply a method by which the rich get the poor to pay their bills (she forgot to mention how sloooowly this happens, mind you), and also she suggested that solar power is, you know, just useless (ie. not coal).

  65. dk.au

    Rudd wants coal to ignite greenhouse scheme – SMH July 16

    THE Federal Government will hold talks with the coal sector today as it tries to enlist industry support for its emissions trading scheme, the vote on which is less than a month away.

    As I understand it, appeasing the coal lobby is the final barrier to getting full support from all business groups (hence Liberal support). The emos have scored an astonishing victory.

  66. Elise

    I wonder if the Rudd government has had a look at the history of England’s transition from coal-fired power and heating to oil-fired, which got rid of their dreadful peasoup smogs? Oil-fired power and heating obviously isn’t the best option, of course, but it is a whole lot cleaner than coal, and was an early step on the road to clean energy.

    One option would have been to tax the hell out of coal, to discourage people and try to drive them into more efficient use and cleaner fuels, as argued by supporters of ETS.

    However, the British government did something different. They went straight to the main game and LEGISLATED DIRECTLY FOR AIR QUALITY, which was their real objective at the time. Companies could either figure out how to cost-effectively clean up their flue gases, or they could switch to a cleaner fuel.

    From what I read, the transition happened very quickly.

    Subsequently, Europe has been in thrall to traditional economic theory, and has gone for an ETS approach. The transition has NOT happened quickly. In fact, from my understanding, they are nowhere near the objectives of the ETS.

    Maybe the problem is with the design of the ETS and ours will be better? Fat chance I reckon, since all the biggest polluters have secured themselves exemptions. Same as they did in Europe.

    Then again, maybe part of the problem is with the implicit assumption that traditional economic theory always works. We have recent experience (GFC) to indicate that there are serious problems with the underpinning assumptions of classical economic theory, including the one that markets always act rationally.

    Surely the Rudd government could do worse than look at a model for changing air quality that actually worked before?

  67. dk.au

    Opposition seeks to modify ETS - AAP (Business Spectator) 20 July 2009

    “I don’t see why we cannot get a deal before the end of the year, all the issues are well and truly out there,” Heather Ridout, chief executive of the Australian Industry Group (Ai Group), said on Monday in Canberra.

    Erm, doesn’t the Liberal Party usually send out its own spokespeople??

  68. dk.au

    Generators warn of carbon trading energy ‘collapse’ – Adelaide Advertiser

    International Power – which operates the Pelican Point power station and wind farms – has warned that to avoid blackouts governments would have to implement emergency plans to generate electricity.

    It said this was because investment in power plants would not meet supply under the planned Federal Government carbon-trading scheme.

    In its submission to the Government’s ongoing inquiry into energy policy, International Power argues penalties imposed on coal-fired power plants will cause some to become unprofitable and prematurely close before greener replacements come online.

    Well shiiit, if coal and LNG can get compo by emoting, why can’t we too?

  69. John Michelmore

    Estimates for Electricity Generating Costs of the alternatives are as follows:-

    Per MWh
    Thermal Coal $30 to $40
    Gas Turbine $40 to $55
    Nuclear $40 to $65
    Gas Turbine with CCS $55 to $95
    Thermal Coal with CCS $55 to $100 (uncertain, little experience)
    Wind $65 to $100 (variable wind effect)
    Solar Thermal/Biomass $70 to $100
    Solar PV $120 to $200

    Unless Australia goes nuclear, we can expect electricity prices to increase 2 to 3 fold from today’s costs based on the estimates above.

  70. Fran Barlow

    Brian@60

    [...]but I think the problem comes from methane being so much more potent than CO2, so it’s a greenhouse booster.

    If cattle were stable in number and simply returning carbon from the soil to the atmosphere then the net effect on the system over time would be zero. There’s no more a free lunch in carbon than there is in energy.

    Actually, the main problem arises because of the fossil input. One could not raise this many ruminants at this speed without the massive resort to fertilisers and the consequent mass produced feedstock. The ruminants in effect are machines for converting the feedstock for the haber process which makes the fertiliser to raise the corn to feed the cow into CH4 and ultimately CO2.

  71. Brian

    Fran, that comment was on 28 May. Since then we’ve had a couple of goes at the issue of ruminants, most recently on this thread where it would be more appropriate to continue the discussion if there is anything new to say.

  72. dk.au

    John@69, which externalities are you including in those figurest? If none, why not?

  73. John Michelmore

    dk.au,
    These costs are basically from the Gov. UMPNER report, 2006 Figure 4.7 Levelised cost estimates (A$2006/MWh). There has been some adjustments for current costs which make Solar PV look bad (but still starting at the lower level of $120).
    They are basic generating costs excluding distribution, nothing else is included.
    I have not attempted to modify the figures for any externalities.
    Hope this helps.

  74. dk.au

    Kroger accuses Rudd of putting his standing ahead of national interest on ETS – 06 August 2009
    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25892010-11949,00.html

    Late to the party with old talking points. Go Liberal!

  75. dk.au
  76. dk.au

    A miner complaint, 3 Nov 2009. Business Spectator.

    [Citigroup Elaine] Prior’s analysis is that despite patchy data on emissions, “the financial impact, even if the CPRS is enacted as currently designed, does not appear concerning to investors.”…

    Prior notes that most Australian coal mines are little affected by the CPRS, and would face an extra cost of 80c to $1.60 a tonne even if fugitive gas emissions were included

    http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Oils-rate-of-assistance-pd20091103-XER3F?opendocument&src=rss

  77. Lefty E

    Yeah, imagine having to clean up your mess, like a grown-up. Its breaking my heart!

    Are Europeans the only adults in the world?

  78. Peter Wood

    Mitch Hooke, Brian Fisher, and the Minerals Council take nonsense to a whole new level.

    They suggest that the carbon price in 2012-13 could be $42.56/tonne or $48.29/tonne — totally ingoring the fact that the CPRS has a price ceiling, which will prevent the carbon price going above $40/tonne by law.

  79. David Irving (no relation)

    They’re hoping no-one remembers that bit, Peter. I mean, how can you spread FUD without a few porkies?

    As a matter of fact, it probably needs to start at about $40/tonne and just go up from there rapidly.

  80. Baraholka

    CPRS Made Me Pierce My Nipples, Baranaby Joyce, centrefold in Esk CWA Bulletin, November 2009.

    Not really, just made that one up.

  81. wbb

    my browser search function seems to be broken – no hits for Minchin on this page !?

  82. David Irving (no relation)

    That’d be because Minchin is certainly no emo, wbb.

  83. wbb

    so that’s me back to wikipedia, then.

    But is it emo or emu?

    Or just a tarmac of ostriches with their collective dickheads up Abbott’s cassock?