When Rudd recently deferred the main component of his climate change strategy, the CPRS, into the never-never Peter Wood reminded us of a speech that Rudd made at Copenhagen. In ringing tones he called for the assembled leaders “to frame a Grand Bargain on climate change” and reminded them that the children of the world were watching and waiting.
There is little doubt that, at Copenhagen, Rudd as a ‘friend of the chair’ gave it his best shot. But at the end of his term as PM will he be able to, in all conscience, say the same? Will he be able to:
sit down, look my children in the eyes and tell them in clear conscience that I did absolutely everything I could to achieve action to avoid dangerous climate change.
In full flight in the speech Rudd referred to a letter from 6 year-old Gracie who had written to him as he set out for Copenhagen:
“Hi” she wrote. “My name is Gracie. How old are you?”
Gracie continues “I am writing to you because I want you all to be strong in Copenhagen… Please listen to us as it is our future.”
I wonder what Gracie thinks of him now.
I have a theory that Rudd came back with a condition akin to post traumatic stress disorder.
I plan to return to the following in a subsequent post, but the shorter version of what Der Spiegel reckons happened at Copenhagen is as follows. A smaller meeting of about 25 critical players was convened in order to resolve intractable differences while the main body waited. In that meeting there was a direct confrontation between France and Germany on the one hand and China and India on the other. The Europeans ran into a brick wall. Obama seemed to equivocate. The Chinese asked for consultation time, because their premier had strategically withdrawn to his hotel room.
It was late afternoon and the meeting never in fact reconvened. Early that evening Obama went down to the floor below to a room booked by the Indians where India, China, Brazil and South Africa caucused. There he found the Chinese leader and in that room the Copenhagen Protocol was crafted, leaving out all that the Europeans regarded as essential.
Rudd assisting a chair who was clearly out of his depth must have felt useless and irrelevant in a conference that he had hoped would legitimise his domestic stance. Ever since he has avoided properly addressing climate change.
But Germany had no less at stake and has dusted itself off to host a series talks in an attempt to progress matters. In this news report Australia’s recalcitrance is noted.
They even put on an extra informal meeting of 45 selected states, the Petersberg Climate Dialogue, in an attempt to break the ice and find a basis for trust. Most countries sent their ministers. Australia sent a Deputy Secretary.
For Rudd the “great moral and economic issue challenge of our time” has been set aside while he concentrates on being re-elected.
Perhaps he is right. Apart from the official UNFCCC stream of talks there are other conferences. Bolivia, for example, on behalf of the ALBA countries organised the World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth. They think that the end of capitalism is a prerequisite for curing Mother Earth. Those countries were strangely absent from Petersberg.
China too organised a conference to re-assert and consolidate its position.
Perhaps Rudd correctly thinks that Australia is wasting its time trying to influence what emerges from that lot where incompatible positions are strongly held.
Meanwhile in Oz, Rudd has no less than three cabinet ministers working on climate change, Penny Wong, Peter Garrett and Martin Ferguson. Indeed there are four cabinet ministers, Kim Carr as well, involved in the $4.5 billion clean energy initiative. Between them they should have been able to devise appropriate strategies and communicate them to the public. They have failed.
Of the three main players, Ferguson has largely sailed under the radar, yet much of the remaining action falls in his bailiwick. Darren Lewin-Hill in a thread comment links to his reports on a meeting with Ferguson. I urge you to read the extended version of Darren’s account. Ferguson’s championing of fossil fuels is grotesque.
Ferguson claims that his fundamental concern is JOBS. Declan Kuch did an excellent piece last year on the sources of Marn’s passion for jobs:
Martin’s anti-environmental alliance with global resource companies arises from this “slavery to the jobs ideology of the late 1940s”, as one Labor staffer I spoke to put it.
I think the question as to whether Ferguson is a closet denialist must be answered in the affirmative. Or else he has no respect for tourism jobs since his policies are incompatible with the retention of such jobs along the Great Barrier Reef, in Kakadu and on the snowfields of the Australian Alps.
May I remind you that this man is Minister for Tourism. It’s a disgrace, simply a disgrace.
It’s a shame that the two politicians with the greatest passion for and understanding of climate change, Malcolm Turnbull and Greg Hunt, are in a party that chews politicians up and spits them out if they get serious about the matter.
A few weeks ago John Davidson, who comments as John D, attended a small afternoon tea put on by Michael Johnston (Liberal – Ryan) for constituents that had contacted him about climate change. Greg Hunt was there to help. John tells me he was impressed with Hunt’s mastery of his brief and the amount of investigation and thinking he had done about climate change. But here’s the rub. Hunt said that 60% of Coalition pollies nationally (80% in Qld) were a against climate action while 75% of Australian citizens were in favour nationally.
Hunt’s concern was to convince Coalition members that there was a political need for the party to support climate action and that the costs would not be as great as they feared.
Recently something called the Climate Competitiveness Index was launched. While doing very well on climate accountability, on climate performance within the OECD Australia is towards the back of the pack. By my count there are 24 countries ahead of us and 4 behind.
The official key findings are here. Carbon Positive has a useful summary pointing out that:
Germany, France, the UK and Nordic countries, have the most consistent performance across the eight domains and between accountability and performance.
And then this:
In the US, Canada and Australia, there is a telling mis-match between citizen concerns and price signals, and divergent views within the business community and in politics.
Could it be that in those three countries climate sceptics/denialists/agnotologists have been most successful in causing mayhem, doubt and uncertainty? Could it be that we have elected the wrong politicians?
When the situation is desperate you take the first step. Reports like the Climate Competitiveness Index give the impression that there is widespread activity elsewhere. Countries are said to be “fiercely competitive as people strive to achieve first mover advantages.”
Finland, for example, is planning massive direct action to boost its renewable energy production to meet European Union requirements of 38% of energy consumption by 2020. The additional capacity needed is equivalent to three big nuclear power plants. Germany and Switzerland, I understand, are thinking of going for 30% reductions by 2020 instead of 20%.
As one of the highest per capita emitters and a major emitter overall, Australia matters. And the world has noticed.
I’m sure Gracie has too.
Fantastic post Brian, thank you very much. “Between them they should have been able to devise appropriate strategies and communicate them to the public. They have failed.” Yes indeed, shameful.
Fantastic post Brian, thank you very much. “Between them they should have been able to devise appropriate strategies and communicate them to the public. They have failed.” Yes indeed, shameful.
Maybe he couls say to Gracie that he wants to deliver for her when she turns 30 in 2033 …
Maybe he couls say to Gracie that he wants to deliver for her when she turns 30 in 2033 …
Thanks Brian – my local member is Michael Johnson (not Johnston) and I certainly wasn’t invited! Can’t say I was impressed with his February mail-out (his post and my response here), but at least Greg Hunt seems to be trying.
Speaking of “widespread activity elsewhere” Canada recently passed it’s strong 25% target in the lower house but it may suffer in the Senate. At least this one has some teeth.
It looks like we’re headed back to the Bush/Howard, Kyoto, “go it alone in Iraq” days where “if the [US Kerry-Lieberman climate and clean-energy] bill doesn’t happen this year, it won’t happen for a long, long time”.
Thanks Brian – my local member is Michael Johnson (not Johnston) and I certainly wasn’t invited! Can’t say I was impressed with his February mail-out (his post and my response here), but at least Greg Hunt seems to be trying.
Speaking of “widespread activity elsewhere” Canada recently passed it’s strong 25% target in the lower house but it may suffer in the Senate. At least this one has some teeth.
It looks like we’re headed back to the Bush/Howard, Kyoto, “go it alone in Iraq” days where “if the [US Kerry-Lieberman climate and clean-energy] bill doesn’t happen this year, it won’t happen for a long, long time”.
Gracie may ask why did The Greens oppose important environmental legislation.
Gracie may ask why did The Greens oppose important environmental legislation.
Other countries (France, the UK etc) have nuclear power. We don’t. I’m not saying we are doing as well as we can, and I’m certainly not defending Rudd, but comparisons between countries are incomplete without also considering their energy mix.
Other countries (France, the UK etc) have nuclear power. We don’t. I’m not saying we are doing as well as we can, and I’m certainly not defending Rudd, but comparisons between countries are incomplete without also considering their energy mix.
Terry … we have been over that ad nauseum. The comment adds nothing unless you have something new to say. ;-(
Terry … we have been over that ad nauseum. The comment adds nothing unless you have something new to say. ;-(
Rudd showed disrespect for Copenhagen by trying to bring a sham ETS to the table, and still failed at that. Like attempting a dive off the 1m platform in the Olympics an bellyflopping. He was probably seared by the contempt in return.
He also showed disrespect to the Australian voters for the same reasons, and still shows disrespect by shelving his sham scheme instead of producing a scheme which shows some real intentions to act on Australia’s emissions. If you’re going to fail it’s better to fail attempting Everest than the nearest ant hill.
Great post brian.
Rudd showed disrespect for Copenhagen by trying to bring a sham ETS to the table, and still failed at that. Like attempting a dive off the 1m platform in the Olympics an bellyflopping. He was probably seared by the contempt in return.
He also showed disrespect to the Australian voters for the same reasons, and still shows disrespect by shelving his sham scheme instead of producing a scheme which shows some real intentions to act on Australia’s emissions. If you’re going to fail it’s better to fail attempting Everest than the nearest ant hill.
Great post brian.
I want to just join in on the love for Brian’s posting on Climate change. Great work
I want to just join in on the love for Brian’s posting on Climate change. Great work
SG said:
or, as in Rudd’s case, digging a deeper hole.
SG said:
or, as in Rudd’s case, digging a deeper hole.
@MichaelS. Me too!
I love you too Brian.
Always great work.
Agreed, another great post Brian, which I hope to read more closely at my leisure.
I did however want to disagree with this line:
There is little doubt that, at Copenhagen, Rudd as a ‘friend of the chair’ gave it his best shot.
That is IMO a significant misreading of the global politics, the role of ‘friends of the chair’ and the role Australia has played.
Everything about the ‘friends of the chair’ was about Denmark saving face. Like any nation hosting talks of international significance it didn’t want to be associated with failure, so the Danish PM appointed a bunch of countries as ‘friends of the chair’ as a way of a) spreading the blame and b) obfuscating the outcome. That Rudd was appointed one was read by many overseas as a very bad sign about the chances of a positive outcome from Copenhagen. It was seen as a significant indication that the west was drawing battle lines behind which to hide their intransigence, and this sadly proved to be true.
Secondly, to say Rudd gave it his best shot leaves the question – best shot at what? And the answer to that is that Australia has not changed its obstructionist stance in global talks since Rudd took over from Howard. Negotiators from the developing world, particularly the worlds’ poorest nation bloc have reported extensively, largely in private but some of it has made it to the public view, of how Australian negotiators openly played ‘deputy sherriff’ to the USA’s position and in particular stymied attempts to identify global targets, equitable methods of assisting the poorest nations, equitable arrangements to bring the new rapidly developing bloc of countries onside, and tried to dump Kyoto.
The single biggest sign we saw of this was in the pre-Copenhagen meetings where developing nations staged a walkout from a key meeting Australia was chairing. Pacific nations in particular despaired of Australia’s stance as they, as our nearest neighbours, are already living with climate change impacts.
Personally, it’s hard for me not to conclude that Rudd’s ‘best shot’ consisted of short-sighted and tragic defense of what he perceives as Australia’s immediate economic interest and key bilateral relations, which ran directly contrary to achieving meaningful and urgent action on climate change both domestically and globally. As a result for a long time for me his rhetoric on climate change has just left me feeling queasy and greasy, because the actions of his government stand in bleak contrast to his words.
Agreed, another great post Brian, which I hope to read more closely at my leisure.
I did however want to disagree with this line:
There is little doubt that, at Copenhagen, Rudd as a ‘friend of the chair’ gave it his best shot.
That is IMO a significant misreading of the global politics, the role of ‘friends of the chair’ and the role Australia has played.
Everything about the ‘friends of the chair’ was about Denmark saving face. Like any nation hosting talks of international significance it didn’t want to be associated with failure, so the Danish PM appointed a bunch of countries as ‘friends of the chair’ as a way of a) spreading the blame and b) obfuscating the outcome. That Rudd was appointed one was read by many overseas as a very bad sign about the chances of a positive outcome from Copenhagen. It was seen as a significant indication that the west was drawing battle lines behind which to hide their intransigence, and this sadly proved to be true.
Secondly, to say Rudd gave it his best shot leaves the question – best shot at what? And the answer to that is that Australia has not changed its obstructionist stance in global talks since Rudd took over from Howard. Negotiators from the developing world, particularly the worlds’ poorest nation bloc have reported extensively, largely in private but some of it has made it to the public view, of how Australian negotiators openly played ‘deputy sherriff’ to the USA’s position and in particular stymied attempts to identify global targets, equitable methods of assisting the poorest nations, equitable arrangements to bring the new rapidly developing bloc of countries onside, and tried to dump Kyoto.
The single biggest sign we saw of this was in the pre-Copenhagen meetings where developing nations staged a walkout from a key meeting Australia was chairing. Pacific nations in particular despaired of Australia’s stance as they, as our nearest neighbours, are already living with climate change impacts.
Personally, it’s hard for me not to conclude that Rudd’s ‘best shot’ consisted of short-sighted and tragic defense of what he perceives as Australia’s immediate economic interest and key bilateral relations, which ran directly contrary to achieving meaningful and urgent action on climate change both domestically and globally. As a result for a long time for me his rhetoric on climate change has just left me feeling queasy and greasy, because the actions of his government stand in bleak contrast to his words.
I’m not sure how Rudd failed. Surely the people that voted against the govt’s environmental reform killed it?
Labor can’t pass legislation without accommodating either the Coalition, or the Greens + ALL of the the various extremist independents, right?
Would the Greens have killed the US Democrats’ healthcare bill if they had their chance?
I’m not sure how Rudd failed. Surely the people that voted against the govt’s environmental reform killed it?
Labor can’t pass legislation without accommodating either the Coalition, or the Greens + ALL of the the various extremist independents, right?
Would the Greens have killed the US Democrats’ healthcare bill if they had their chance?
Oh, right, so one man, the Prime Minister of – where was that again? Australia? – was expected to alter the course of an international conference all on his own.
Riiiiight.
Oh, right, so one man, the Prime Minister of – where was that again? Australia? – was expected to alter the course of an international conference all on his own.
Riiiiight.
I suppose Ferguson is in a safe seat? What’s the likelihood of getting him away from those portfolios, and if it did happen, would someone better or worse be put forward to replace him?
I suppose Ferguson is in a safe seat? What’s the likelihood of getting him away from those portfolios, and if it did happen, would someone better or worse be put forward to replace him?
Well, basically at Copenhagen nothing changed. At home Rudd seems to be going for alternative energies as a means of reducing global warming, if the budget is any indication. Well, that’s fine and I applaud it especially since it probably should’ve been done over 12 -14 years ago.Those programmes should have been up and running eons ago. And that is not Rudd’s fault. Its Howard’s.
I’m not particularly worried about Rudd shelving the ETS. It was an ineffective dog’s breakfast anyway. A carbon tacx would’ve been more sensible. Unfortunately, that’s not on the table either. I’m an old man I don’t have to worry. I’ll be dead before all this shit really starts. But I fear very much for future generations. One thing we, the baby boomers, are not doing is handing them a better world. And for those of you who are bbs, we’ve failed folks. The revolution didn’t happen.
Well, basically at Copenhagen nothing changed. At home Rudd seems to be going for alternative energies as a means of reducing global warming, if the budget is any indication. Well, that’s fine and I applaud it especially since it probably should’ve been done over 12 -14 years ago.Those programmes should have been up and running eons ago. And that is not Rudd’s fault. Its Howard’s.
I’m not particularly worried about Rudd shelving the ETS. It was an ineffective dog’s breakfast anyway. A carbon tacx would’ve been more sensible. Unfortunately, that’s not on the table either. I’m an old man I don’t have to worry. I’ll be dead before all this shit really starts. But I fear very much for future generations. One thing we, the baby boomers, are not doing is handing them a better world. And for those of you who are bbs, we’ve failed folks. The revolution didn’t happen.
Julie, he’s member for Batman, where he’s on 75.95%. It’s the safest Federal seat in the country.
Julie, he’s member for Batman, where he’s on 75.95%. It’s the safest Federal seat in the country.
JulieG #13:
At the moment and for the forseeable future, he is. The seat of Batman is in the northern suburbs of Melbourne and covers the suburbs in which my mother’s family and I grew up. The southern end comprises places like Northcote, Thurnbury, etc., which have become popular with the Green-leaning humanistic intelligentsia and students in recent decades, and the Greens are now on the cusp of winning booths in these precincts. However the northern end comprises my home suburb of Reservoir which is rusted-on Collingwood-barracking Old Labor and is the mainstay of Ferguson’s support.
JulieG #13:
At the moment and for the forseeable future, he is. The seat of Batman is in the northern suburbs of Melbourne and covers the suburbs in which my mother’s family and I grew up. The southern end comprises places like Northcote, Thurnbury, etc., which have become popular with the Green-leaning humanistic intelligentsia and students in recent decades, and the Greens are now on the cusp of winning booths in these precincts. However the northern end comprises my home suburb of Reservoir which is rusted-on Collingwood-barracking Old Labor and is the mainstay of Ferguson’s support.
This excellent post coming on top of the budget shows what a desparate disconnect we have with Rudd’s ETS flop. Apart from some concern about China’s long term growth and our dependency via metal ore exports and a second wave GFC there’s nary a word about other possibilities. What of an oil shock? The $650 million for renewables support is piffling and yet another attempt to pick winners. To think that that is all we have for the abandonment of the CPRS. I just wish the pollsters would confirm for all that Rudd’s popularity drop was all to do with his ETS flop.
This excellent post coming on top of the budget shows what a desparate disconnect we have with Rudd’s ETS flop. Apart from some concern about China’s long term growth and our dependency via metal ore exports and a second wave GFC there’s nary a word about other possibilities. What of an oil shock? The $650 million for renewables support is piffling and yet another attempt to pick winners. To think that that is all we have for the abandonment of the CPRS. I just wish the pollsters would confirm for all that Rudd’s popularity drop was all to do with his ETS flop.
Could it be that we have elected the wrong politicians?
Too true. Great post Brian.
Could it be that we have elected the wrong politicians?
Too true. Great post Brian.
I’ve got to fly, but thanks for the kind remarks. I actually had to wrestle with this one a bit, but I was happy about how it turned out.
But I want to express my thanks to Peter Wood and John D whose pointers were more than the icing on the cake.
I’ve got to fly, but thanks for the kind remarks. I actually had to wrestle with this one a bit, but I was happy about how it turned out.
But I want to express my thanks to Peter Wood and John D whose pointers were more than the icing on the cake.
Was he ever in the closet?
It’s interesting that the budget has made provision for a public education campaign on climate change. It will need to have more substance than the ads the government was running in early 2009.
Was he ever in the closet?
It’s interesting that the budget has made provision for a public education campaign on climate change. It will need to have more substance than the ads the government was running in early 2009.
So we should be feeling bad because we did not let a six-year-old child dictate Australian government policy? The insistence on the part of some people that we on the one hand “listen to science” and on the other “listen to little kids and people who anthropomorphise ‘Mother Earth’” represents a disconnect I cannot bridge.
So we should be feeling bad because we did not let a six-year-old child dictate Australian government policy? The insistence on the part of some people that we on the one hand “listen to science” and on the other “listen to little kids and people who anthropomorphise ‘Mother Earth’” represents a disconnect I cannot bridge.
Terry, unlike you, Gracie probably already understands why the Greens didn’t support the totally fucking useless CPRS.
Terry, unlike you, Gracie probably already understands why the Greens didn’t support the totally fucking useless CPRS.
So if the problem was that the CPRS was not strong enough for the Greens to support, and was too strong for Fielding to support, what is the quid pro quo that people here are prepared to make to get Fielding’s vote.
It could have been done.
Imagine:
No Fed money for abortion, and
Creationism taught in schools that get Fed money, for a start
Internet filter reaffirmed, and
a crackdown on all soft and hard pron.
For a start.
Worth it?
Life is really interesting if you have to give up something you value for something else you value more.
Lest you be thinking I am fanciful in that little list above, most of the Fielding voters would regard it as middle of the road stuff, base level negotiation. And I reckon it would have swung his vote – even for a proposal that would have had the greens on side.
Oh, and Xenophon would have given his vote for some real Fed opposition to Pokies. (There’s plenty of ways the Feds could heavy the States over this).
So if the problem was that the CPRS was not strong enough for the Greens to support, and was too strong for Fielding to support, what is the quid pro quo that people here are prepared to make to get Fielding’s vote.
It could have been done.
Imagine:
No Fed money for abortion, and
Creationism taught in schools that get Fed money, for a start
Internet filter reaffirmed, and
a crackdown on all soft and hard pron.
For a start.
Worth it?
Life is really interesting if you have to give up something you value for something else you value more.
Lest you be thinking I am fanciful in that little list above, most of the Fielding voters would regard it as middle of the road stuff, base level negotiation. And I reckon it would have swung his vote – even for a proposal that would have had the greens on side.
Oh, and Xenophon would have given his vote for some real Fed opposition to Pokies. (There’s plenty of ways the Feds could heavy the States over this).
Did anyone actually see a photo of “little Gracie”? Did little Gracie ever even exist?
Did anyone actually see a photo of “little Gracie”? Did little Gracie ever even exist?
I second Fran @6 above – there’s no point resurrecting the interminable Greens v Labor stoush over whether or not the CPRS was any good. That argument has no prospect of resolution, and has already hijacked several other threads. Why not just leave it?
I second Fran @6 above – there’s no point resurrecting the interminable Greens v Labor stoush over whether or not the CPRS was any good. That argument has no prospect of resolution, and has already hijacked several other threads. Why not just leave it?
Oh dear, it is the same tedious old drivel. The so-called ETS scheme was a rort that would have paid the polluters billions every year and achieved not much.
Not to mention that Gracie is just another selfish imbecile Australian – 2 billion human beings live in squalor and poverty and we are still whining about this self-indulgent nonsense.
If no other countries have trading schemes we would have RIO and BHP here trading with each other, being paid by us to keep polluting and none of us will be forced to take responsibility for our own filth.
Did Gracie spare a thought for the 9 million children under 5 who already die every year due to a lack of food?
Or is Gracie just another selfish Australian brat?
Oh dear, it is the same tedious old drivel. The so-called ETS scheme was a rort that would have paid the polluters billions every year and achieved not much.
Not to mention that Gracie is just another selfish imbecile Australian – 2 billion human beings live in squalor and poverty and we are still whining about this self-indulgent nonsense.
If no other countries have trading schemes we would have RIO and BHP here trading with each other, being paid by us to keep polluting and none of us will be forced to take responsibility for our own filth.
Did Gracie spare a thought for the 9 million children under 5 who already die every year due to a lack of food?
Or is Gracie just another selfish Australian brat?
Why so we need to imagine or impute negative things about Gracie? Says more about the people doing it.
Now I really am out of here for a bit.
Why so we need to imagine or impute negative things about Gracie? Says more about the people doing it.
Now I really am out of here for a bit.
Bill@25 – “little Gracie” does exist. There are two Graces attending the school that wrote the Copenhagen letters to the Prime Minister. I saw one of the Graces yesterday when I dropped my son off and the other visited my house last week. I’m not sure which Grace had her letter read by the PM but I can assure you that neither of them was manufactured by a crazed PM staffer.
Bill@25 – “little Gracie” does exist. There are two Graces attending the school that wrote the Copenhagen letters to the Prime Minister. I saw one of the Graces yesterday when I dropped my son off and the other visited my house last week. I’m not sure which Grace had her letter read by the PM but I can assure you that neither of them was manufactured by a crazed PM staffer.
If The Greens voted down f***ing useless legislation, then presumably little Gracie can sleep easier, as they have done their bit to help save the planet from bad legislation.
If The Greens voted down f***ing useless legislation, then presumably little Gracie can sleep easier, as they have done their bit to help save the planet from bad legislation.
Little Gracie has had her heart brutally stabbed by bad, bad Kevin Rudd and there is just no getting away from it.
Little Gracie has had her heart brutally stabbed by bad, bad Kevin Rudd and there is just no getting away from it.
Meanwhile the world gets hotter and closer to the tipping point.
It would have been nice to see investment in renewable energy instead of listening to the mining companies squealing like stuck pigs about the resources super tax (their submission to the Henry Review). Interesting to see the disconnect between their mandatory announcements to the Australian Stock Exchange and their strident press releases.
Great work Brian
Meanwhile the world gets hotter and closer to the tipping point.
It would have been nice to see investment in renewable energy instead of listening to the mining companies squealing like stuck pigs about the resources super tax (their submission to the Henry Review). Interesting to see the disconnect between their mandatory announcements to the Australian Stock Exchange and their strident press releases.
Great work Brian
Hi Marilyn Shepherd,
You know, I believe there’s a job vacancy at The Age following the recent departure of a certain Ms C. Deveny. It looks to me like you might be the ideal candidate to fill her shoes.
Hi Marilyn Shepherd,
You know, I believe there’s a job vacancy at The Age following the recent departure of a certain Ms C. Deveny. It looks to me like you might be the ideal candidate to fill her shoes.
Word, Brian.
Though in passing sentence on Garrett, Wong and Ferguson — is it fairer to say they have failed so far…I don’t think the fat lady has sung just yet? Mebbe?
Word, Brian.
Though in passing sentence on Garrett, Wong and Ferguson — is it fairer to say they have failed so far…I don’t think the fat lady has sung just yet? Mebbe?
Oh great, more hysterical Warmy propaganda.
Oh great, more hysterical Warmy propaganda.
How about spending money on closing or retrofitting some brown-coal fired power stations?
Somehow, I don’t think those crumbs for renewables and propaganda will make much difference to total Oz emissions.
How about spending money on closing or retrofitting some brown-coal fired power stations?
Somehow, I don’t think those crumbs for renewables and propaganda will make much difference to total Oz emissions.
joe2 @ 31…why don’t you just marry Kev since you love him sooooooo much? oh, right, sorry, you can’t.
He is a christian tho so maybe “the baby jesus” is a better bet to stop the warming than gracie eh? We should just shut up and have faith? Since the other christian (with all those photos of himself in jocks failing to stop anyone from laughing at his ears) has the “virgin mother”, Kev can have the baby jesus yes? and it’ll all be sweet? yes? altogether now: “all things bright and beautiful….”
joe2 @ 31…why don’t you just marry Kev since you love him sooooooo much? oh, right, sorry, you can’t.
He is a christian tho so maybe “the baby jesus” is a better bet to stop the warming than gracie eh? We should just shut up and have faith? Since the other christian (with all those photos of himself in jocks failing to stop anyone from laughing at his ears) has the “virgin mother”, Kev can have the baby jesus yes? and it’ll all be sweet? yes? altogether now: “all things bright and beautiful….”
Thanks Liam and Paul Norton for the info on Ferguson, disappointing as it is. On the bright side, there’s a seat called Batman!
Marilyn @27 – most of Europe has an ETS now, and it’s lead to reductions in GHG emissions. It hasn’t been a radical idea for about a decade, it’s just that Aussie politicians are slow to catch on.
And although I’ve cleaned up my ‘filthy lifestyle’ as much as I can, my energy efficiency and switch to Green Power won’t stop 80% of Australia’s electricity coming from coal-fired power stations which receive obscene amounts of government subsidies. My bus-ride doesn’t improve transport policy; my bucket in the shower doesn’t get us a water recycling plant. Political action is necessary; individual action is not nearly enough to fix this problem. All individuals can do is put their money where their mouth is, and then follow up by harassing politicians until they fix the underlying, broken system.
Thanks Liam and Paul Norton for the info on Ferguson, disappointing as it is. On the bright side, there’s a seat called Batman!
Marilyn @27 – most of Europe has an ETS now, and it’s lead to reductions in GHG emissions. It hasn’t been a radical idea for about a decade, it’s just that Aussie politicians are slow to catch on.
And although I’ve cleaned up my ‘filthy lifestyle’ as much as I can, my energy efficiency and switch to Green Power won’t stop 80% of Australia’s electricity coming from coal-fired power stations which receive obscene amounts of government subsidies. My bus-ride doesn’t improve transport policy; my bucket in the shower doesn’t get us a water recycling plant. Political action is necessary; individual action is not nearly enough to fix this problem. All individuals can do is put their money where their mouth is, and then follow up by harassing politicians until they fix the underlying, broken system.
JulieG @38: “All individuals can do is put their money where their mouth is, and then follow up by harassing politicians until they fix the underlying, broken system.”
Never a truer word was spoken!
You forgot only “antiquated” perhaps?
The trouble is that our system is suited to different times, when oil was plentiful and “infinite”, coal-fired power was cheap, and the atmosphere and oceans had “infinite capacity” to absorb CO2. Or so we believed.
The pollies really must understand that the public want action. Otherwise they will continue to content themselves with grandstanding about Gracie, and cutting down more trees to tell us that we should all turn lights off and shower with buckets…
Bloody daft. They KNOW that won’t be enough to get the 80% reduction we need.
Unless they get a bloody nose from the electorate in the polls, then posturing is all we will get, from both sides.
JulieG @38: “All individuals can do is put their money where their mouth is, and then follow up by harassing politicians until they fix the underlying, broken system.”
Never a truer word was spoken!
You forgot only “antiquated” perhaps?
The trouble is that our system is suited to different times, when oil was plentiful and “infinite”, coal-fired power was cheap, and the atmosphere and oceans had “infinite capacity” to absorb CO2. Or so we believed.
The pollies really must understand that the public want action. Otherwise they will continue to content themselves with grandstanding about Gracie, and cutting down more trees to tell us that we should all turn lights off and shower with buckets…
Bloody daft. They KNOW that won’t be enough to get the 80% reduction we need.
Unless they get a bloody nose from the electorate in the polls, then posturing is all we will get, from both sides.
Thanks for linking to the report of my meeting with Ferguson, Brian, and for the strong post. I don’t agree that Rudd gave it his best shot at Copenhagen, but it’s great to read such an informed post that really adds to the climate discussion.
In the lead-up to the federal election, I think it will be important to emphasise that any boost to renewables is undermined by a failure to implement a strong carbon price (possibly via an interim carbon tax), and by the relentless push to dig up, burn and export coal. Anyone who has yet to do so should read Guy Pearse’s excellent piece, King Coal, in The Monthly (thanks kuke!). It’s grim but necessary reading.
If the Government’s climate measures – weak as they currently are – merely veil the continuing plunder of coal, they will be a mockery of meaningful climate action.
Re the funding for a climate education campaign, the Government should not be allowed to get away with flimsy propaganda that sells weak action that doesn’t include the urgency of deep cuts.
When I met with Ferguson, I put to him that what is required is a campaign of the kind that would be considered for a serious public health threat. He said the Government had made it very difficult for itself regarding political advertising, but that is not at all what’s required. The Government should be called to account to base any campaign on the strongest available peer-reviewed research findings.
Framed in this way, calling it political advertising would be like applying that label to a televised bushfire evacuation warning, or to an urgent message about restrictions imposed by the spread of a serious communicable disease such as avian influenza.
Thanks again for the link, and for the excellent post.
Thanks for linking to the report of my meeting with Ferguson, Brian, and for the strong post. I don’t agree that Rudd gave it his best shot at Copenhagen, but it’s great to read such an informed post that really adds to the climate discussion.
In the lead-up to the federal election, I think it will be important to emphasise that any boost to renewables is undermined by a failure to implement a strong carbon price (possibly via an interim carbon tax), and by the relentless push to dig up, burn and export coal. Anyone who has yet to do so should read Guy Pearse’s excellent piece, King Coal, in The Monthly (thanks kuke!). It’s grim but necessary reading.
If the Government’s climate measures – weak as they currently are – merely veil the continuing plunder of coal, they will be a mockery of meaningful climate action.
Re the funding for a climate education campaign, the Government should not be allowed to get away with flimsy propaganda that sells weak action that doesn’t include the urgency of deep cuts.
When I met with Ferguson, I put to him that what is required is a campaign of the kind that would be considered for a serious public health threat. He said the Government had made it very difficult for itself regarding political advertising, but that is not at all what’s required. The Government should be called to account to base any campaign on the strongest available peer-reviewed research findings.
Framed in this way, calling it political advertising would be like applying that label to a televised bushfire evacuation warning, or to an urgent message about restrictions imposed by the spread of a serious communicable disease such as avian influenza.
Thanks again for the link, and for the excellent post.
The Rudd government’s emission reduction plan is to help China and India burn coal as fast as they can which will create a world wide shortage and raise the price of coal over other forms of energy generation. “If it’s not there you can’t burn it.”
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6434#more
The Rudd government’s emission reduction plan is to help China and India burn coal as fast as they can which will create a world wide shortage and raise the price of coal over other forms of energy generation. “If it’s not there you can’t burn it.”
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6434#more
Salient Green, it’s common sense that China’s and India’s expansion of coal consumption can’t continue forever, but an economic analysis by Richard Heinberg is about as credible as a climatology paper by Christopher Monckton.
Salient Green, it’s common sense that China’s and India’s expansion of coal consumption can’t continue forever, but an economic analysis by Richard Heinberg is about as credible as a climatology paper by Christopher Monckton.
Paulus,
What? And give up all that dole? Not likely…
Paulus,
What? And give up all that dole? Not likely…
Correction Brian. Greg Hunt’s figures were for PARTY MEMBERS, NOT POLLIES. Otherwise a good post. I am not convinced that Rudd has dropped climate action. He has said consistently that the targets have not been dropped and that substantial action will be taken. Peter Van Olsen in the Aus says that:
Keep in mind that much of the logical climate action requires little government expenditure. Think lifting the MRET target, regulating to reduce the average fuel consumption of new cars etc.
Correction Brian. Greg Hunt’s figures were for PARTY MEMBERS, NOT POLLIES. Otherwise a good post. I am not convinced that Rudd has dropped climate action. He has said consistently that the targets have not been dropped and that substantial action will be taken. Peter Van Olsen in the Aus says that:
Keep in mind that much of the logical climate action requires little government expenditure. Think lifting the MRET target, regulating to reduce the average fuel consumption of new cars etc.
1. The ALP tried but could not pass the ETS. The anti-AGW movement peaked at same time as Abbott drove Turnbull from the leadership. Nobody could sell AGW let alone the ETS at that time.
2. The ALP cannot take the ETS to an election as Abbott’s slick populism would mean that the GBNT scare would win him the election against an ETS which is inherently politically unsaleable without bipartisanship.
3. The ALP has decided to win the election and change tack on CC by going down the direct action path as John D has long espoused.
4. Kyoto II and ETS II require more time to rebuild. I’d prefer the ALP in power at that later time than Abbott.
5. Nobody has to like all this.
1. The ALP tried but could not pass the ETS. The anti-AGW movement peaked at same time as Abbott drove Turnbull from the leadership. Nobody could sell AGW let alone the ETS at that time.
2. The ALP cannot take the ETS to an election as Abbott’s slick populism would mean that the GBNT scare would win him the election against an ETS which is inherently politically unsaleable without bipartisanship.
3. The ALP has decided to win the election and change tack on CC by going down the direct action path as John D has long espoused.
4. Kyoto II and ETS II require more time to rebuild. I’d prefer the ALP in power at that later time than Abbott.
5. Nobody has to like all this.
John D, sorry for the misunderstanding. I’ll correct the text. Also kuke @ 3 re Johnson’s name. We’ve just been moved back again to Ryan from Brisbane where we have been for a number of elections, so he’s my member too now.
Still, I’m betting that Coalition members are fairly representative of party members. In fact in this article Gerard Henderson says:
54 out of 83, I assume Liberals, is 65%.
I wrote the piece largely before the budget and had only Swan’s speech to go on, plus the discussion that followed before I posted it. In the Fin Review today there are two items of note. One is that they are going to spend $30 million over two years on a “campaign on climate change”.
The second is that they are going to switch the $652 million (over 4 years) they have saved on the CPRS to “a renewable energy future fund”. Some of this will be
Where they have a task force reporting mid-year.
I understand the MRET is now the RET, with the “mandatory” dropped. They reckon it will deliver more than 20%. I’m not sure, but they seem to be reluctant to go down the regulatory road.
I’m willing to recognise that in per capita terms Australia’s 5% off by 2020 is really 28% (from memory) off, but only if there are signs that the Government appreciates the true nature of the task. I think they are a long way from that with their 60% by 2050. In my Senate C’tee submission -pdf (see pp3-4) I addressed the inadequacy of the Government’s science. I had originally intended to include some of that material in the post, plus the notion that it gets harder and more expensive if you start later (see figures 3 and 4 of this one). But it would have been too long.
One of Rudd’s problems, I think, is that he is prone to overblown rhetoric, which contributes to a lack of authenticity in how he presents himself. He deserves a serve for that alone.
Then, according to Guy Pearse Martin Ferguson sees the construction of new coal-fired power stations as inevitable.
So we’ll see, I guess, but as yet I’m not convinced they are really serious.
John D, sorry for the misunderstanding. I’ll correct the text. Also kuke @ 3 re Johnson’s name. We’ve just been moved back again to Ryan from Brisbane where we have been for a number of elections, so he’s my member too now.
Still, I’m betting that Coalition members are fairly representative of party members. In fact in this article Gerard Henderson says:
54 out of 83, I assume Liberals, is 65%.
I wrote the piece largely before the budget and had only Swan’s speech to go on, plus the discussion that followed before I posted it. In the Fin Review today there are two items of note. One is that they are going to spend $30 million over two years on a “campaign on climate change”.
The second is that they are going to switch the $652 million (over 4 years) they have saved on the CPRS to “a renewable energy future fund”. Some of this will be
Where they have a task force reporting mid-year.
I understand the MRET is now the RET, with the “mandatory” dropped. They reckon it will deliver more than 20%. I’m not sure, but they seem to be reluctant to go down the regulatory road.
I’m willing to recognise that in per capita terms Australia’s 5% off by 2020 is really 28% (from memory) off, but only if there are signs that the Government appreciates the true nature of the task. I think they are a long way from that with their 60% by 2050. In my Senate C’tee submission -pdf (see pp3-4) I addressed the inadequacy of the Government’s science. I had originally intended to include some of that material in the post, plus the notion that it gets harder and more expensive if you start later (see figures 3 and 4 of this one). But it would have been too long.
One of Rudd’s problems, I think, is that he is prone to overblown rhetoric, which contributes to a lack of authenticity in how he presents himself. He deserves a serve for that alone.
Then, according to Guy Pearse Martin Ferguson sees the construction of new coal-fired power stations as inevitable.
So we’ll see, I guess, but as yet I’m not convinced they are really serious.
That’s interesting, Marn: I see a major popular campaign against the construction of new coal-fired power stations as inevitable.
That’s interesting, Marn: I see a major popular campaign against the construction of new coal-fired power stations as inevitable.
Simple maths suggests that whatever part of $652million is for new renewable capacity isn’t going to buy much — and certainly nothing that can substitute for coal or gas. Even if you used almost all of it on wind, you’d be lucky to get 30-40MW of capacity credit out of that.
Simple maths suggests that whatever part of $652million is for new renewable capacity isn’t going to buy much — and certainly nothing that can substitute for coal or gas. Even if you used almost all of it on wind, you’d be lucky to get 30-40MW of capacity credit out of that.
Kep it real folks: EU to lift its CO2 cuts from 20 to 30%, citing China’s ‘massive investment’ in low carbon tech, and the risk of being ‘left behind’. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10109088.stm
Let’s not mince words: Australia’s position sucks. Both our major party alternatives, and especially Rudd’s capitulation from a faux-action position to a effectively denialist one, are a complete embarrasment.
Ultiamtely, I guess, we all have to take responsibility for our infantile political culture.
Kep it real folks: EU to lift its CO2 cuts from 20 to 30%, citing China’s ‘massive investment’ in low carbon tech, and the risk of being ‘left behind’. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10109088.stm
Let’s not mince words: Australia’s position sucks. Both our major party alternatives, and especially Rudd’s capitulation from a faux-action position to a effectively denialist one, are a complete embarrasment.
Ultiamtely, I guess, we all have to take responsibility for our infantile political culture.
Lefty E said:
That sounds unobjectionable until you start unpicking it. Whom is specified in the variable // we all ? Win what sense does the value of the preceding own or author “the political culture”? Is it your claim that Australian adults as a class of persons, have achieved something like inclusive governance?
Given the “Lefty” in your nym, one presumes you’d hold the contrary.
If the political culture is not the expression of the felt needs of the populace as a whole then it’s misleading to make the attribution above. At best you are sheeting home resposibility to disengaged bystanders and possibly victims.
This blog would not, in its majority, endorse the political culture you criticise which tends to exclude us from // we all .
Personally, I take no responsibility at all for Rudd’s failures. At every moment, I have urtged his minions (and once or twice him) to take a different course. I’ve argued for this wherever it has been germane to discussion on the web and IRL. He has decided to act otherwise — and that would be his call. Others who might have spoken up haven’t done so and that would be their problem. Some (e.g. ACF, Climate Institute) backed his backsliding. Their call.
Lefty E said:
That sounds unobjectionable until you start unpicking it. Whom is specified in the variable // we all ? Win what sense does the value of the preceding own or author “the political culture”? Is it your claim that Australian adults as a class of persons, have achieved something like inclusive governance?
Given the “Lefty” in your nym, one presumes you’d hold the contrary.
If the political culture is not the expression of the felt needs of the populace as a whole then it’s misleading to make the attribution above. At best you are sheeting home resposibility to disengaged bystanders and possibly victims.
This blog would not, in its majority, endorse the political culture you criticise which tends to exclude us from // we all .
Personally, I take no responsibility at all for Rudd’s failures. At every moment, I have urtged his minions (and once or twice him) to take a different course. I’ve argued for this wherever it has been germane to discussion on the web and IRL. He has decided to act otherwise — and that would be his call. Others who might have spoken up haven’t done so and that would be their problem. Some (e.g. ACF, Climate Institute) backed his backsliding. Their call.
Tim Macknay @ #42,”an economic analysis by Richard Heinberg is about as credible as a climatology paper by Christopher Monckton.”
That’s a pretty strong and offensive opinion of Richard Heinberg but worthless without a reason.
Unfortunately I can’t sort this out with you. I will be in the Flinders Ranges for the next 5 days and most certainly won’t give a stuff by the time I leave this house about Richard Heinberg or Tim Macknay.
Tim Macknay @ #42,”an economic analysis by Richard Heinberg is about as credible as a climatology paper by Christopher Monckton.”
That’s a pretty strong and offensive opinion of Richard Heinberg but worthless without a reason.
Unfortunately I can’t sort this out with you. I will be in the Flinders Ranges for the next 5 days and most certainly won’t give a stuff by the time I leave this house about Richard Heinberg or Tim Macknay.
If Mal has so much understanding of climate change, how come he was prepared to offer a plan that put the interest of business so highly, watered down from the original Labor scheme, that was so crappy that the Greens could not in good conscience vote for it?
If Mal has so much understanding of climate change, how come he was prepared to offer a plan that put the interest of business so highly, watered down from the original Labor scheme, that was so crappy that the Greens could not in good conscience vote for it?
That’s a good question, joe2. My own position on any sort of ETS is that it should be deferred until we can have genuine international trading with countries that are at a similar level of progress in climate change mitigation. It relates to my attitude to “free’ trade, which is a big topic.
Generally I’m in favour initially of an emphasis on direct action which seeks to bring all technologies with reasonable prospects to the market, and phase in renewable technologies through a tendering process in the manner that John D suggests. Also there is low hanging fruit in energy savings in households and commercial building which, I understand, could amount to 10% of emissions overall with very little expenditure. Also regulation of vehicle emissions together with a promotion of public transport, plus a few other things.
But I have to admit that I don’t spend a lot of time on practical mitigation issues, leaving it to engineers and other people with more relevant skills and knowledge.
Turnbull when minister for the environment said multiple times that we have to completely decarbonise the grid by 2050. For that, which could have been used against him internally, I gave him a lot of brownie points, plus whenever he talks about the topic he has a considerable mastery of detail.
That’s a good question, joe2. My own position on any sort of ETS is that it should be deferred until we can have genuine international trading with countries that are at a similar level of progress in climate change mitigation. It relates to my attitude to “free’ trade, which is a big topic.
Generally I’m in favour initially of an emphasis on direct action which seeks to bring all technologies with reasonable prospects to the market, and phase in renewable technologies through a tendering process in the manner that John D suggests. Also there is low hanging fruit in energy savings in households and commercial building which, I understand, could amount to 10% of emissions overall with very little expenditure. Also regulation of vehicle emissions together with a promotion of public transport, plus a few other things.
But I have to admit that I don’t spend a lot of time on practical mitigation issues, leaving it to engineers and other people with more relevant skills and knowledge.
Turnbull when minister for the environment said multiple times that we have to completely decarbonise the grid by 2050. For that, which could have been used against him internally, I gave him a lot of brownie points, plus whenever he talks about the topic he has a considerable mastery of detail.
I tend to agree on the ETS question — at least for the next couple of years Brian but I do think that absent a general price on CO2 emissions right across the economy, we are going to find it very difficult to move forward. So a carbon tax, even if it was only as modest as that proposed by the Greens but escalating eventually to that implied in an ETS, which could then replace it, would be a good start.
Speaking purely of “direct action” style measures in renewables …
Basically I’m in favour of funding anything that in the popular mind might substantially replace fossil fuels, even if one suspects they can’t.
What we don’t have is time, so if that means spending more now to settle the question early, then I’m for that.
I’d like the state to say … look … we’re willing to pay $US 4.2 billion per GW (minimum nameplate 250 MW) providing you can supply at least 8000 hours at full rated capacity to the grid in your first full year of service at a cost reflecting coal + $35 per tonne of CO2. You pay loan service until a determination is made. We rate the tendered projects on the basis of their contribution to the grid after due diligence and pick out the best 2 or three in each region.
Nuclear would obviously be in the mix.
The state supplies a line of credit at the OCA. If at the end of the first full year of operation ther developer meets the standard, it gets to keep the full proceeds of energy sales, gets paid a 5% commission on outlays, the state gets the plant and deems the loan discharged and offers tenders on the plant operation going forward. Developer gets first refusal at beating any rival bid.
If it fails the 8000 hours the state gets liquidated damages at the extent of the failure and if it fails by 20% or more the developer gets charged commercial interest and forfeits tender preparation allowance.
This, in addition to due diligence, should weed out unserious proposals and put to bed arguments about what might work. They have a budget, we pick the best proposals and we move forward.
I’d also like to see some action on road pricing along the lines I’ve discussed earlier in which all current charges for fuel and road-going vehicles get rolled into one road usage charge that was sensitive to tare, traffic intensity, rival public transport or commercial carriage, driver skill and compliance, emissions and so forth. (If we had a tax on CO2 this could be excluded). So rego and third party personal and even licence fees would go along with fuel excise and stamp duty and so on. Infringements would be realtime but the minor ones would be much smaller since 100% of infringing drivers would get them.
We would use the revenue to build quality medium and high density housing within about 25 km of the major urban centres and to fund associated low emissions infrastructure.
That sounds like a good start.
I tend to agree on the ETS question — at least for the next couple of years Brian but I do think that absent a general price on CO2 emissions right across the economy, we are going to find it very difficult to move forward. So a carbon tax, even if it was only as modest as that proposed by the Greens but escalating eventually to that implied in an ETS, which could then replace it, would be a good start.
Speaking purely of “direct action” style measures in renewables …
Basically I’m in favour of funding anything that in the popular mind might substantially replace fossil fuels, even if one suspects they can’t.
What we don’t have is time, so if that means spending more now to settle the question early, then I’m for that.
I’d like the state to say … look … we’re willing to pay $US 4.2 billion per GW (minimum nameplate 250 MW) providing you can supply at least 8000 hours at full rated capacity to the grid in your first full year of service at a cost reflecting coal + $35 per tonne of CO2. You pay loan service until a determination is made. We rate the tendered projects on the basis of their contribution to the grid after due diligence and pick out the best 2 or three in each region.
Nuclear would obviously be in the mix.
The state supplies a line of credit at the OCA. If at the end of the first full year of operation ther developer meets the standard, it gets to keep the full proceeds of energy sales, gets paid a 5% commission on outlays, the state gets the plant and deems the loan discharged and offers tenders on the plant operation going forward. Developer gets first refusal at beating any rival bid.
If it fails the 8000 hours the state gets liquidated damages at the extent of the failure and if it fails by 20% or more the developer gets charged commercial interest and forfeits tender preparation allowance.
This, in addition to due diligence, should weed out unserious proposals and put to bed arguments about what might work. They have a budget, we pick the best proposals and we move forward.
I’d also like to see some action on road pricing along the lines I’ve discussed earlier in which all current charges for fuel and road-going vehicles get rolled into one road usage charge that was sensitive to tare, traffic intensity, rival public transport or commercial carriage, driver skill and compliance, emissions and so forth. (If we had a tax on CO2 this could be excluded). So rego and third party personal and even licence fees would go along with fuel excise and stamp duty and so on. Infringements would be realtime but the minor ones would be much smaller since 100% of infringing drivers would get them.
We would use the revenue to build quality medium and high density housing within about 25 km of the major urban centres and to fund associated low emissions infrastructure.
That sounds like a good start.
Kevin Rudd is not doing anything significant to reduce emissions – his fatally compromised ETS would not have either.
If he really cared about climate change then he would be investing $40b+ in clean energy and remove all existing subsidies and tax concessions for fossil fuel use.
At this point in time the NBN (with $40b committed) has a much higher priority than action on climate change!
There is a yawning gulf between what he is saying and what he is doing. 3 days of failed negotiations in Copenhagen are irrelevant.
It is our moral imperative (his words) to reduce carbon emissions by any means possible as quickly as possible.
Our current political system and those in it don’t seem capable of doing what is needed.
Kevin Rudd is not doing anything significant to reduce emissions – his fatally compromised ETS would not have either.
If he really cared about climate change then he would be investing $40b+ in clean energy and remove all existing subsidies and tax concessions for fossil fuel use.
At this point in time the NBN (with $40b committed) has a much higher priority than action on climate change!
There is a yawning gulf between what he is saying and what he is doing. 3 days of failed negotiations in Copenhagen are irrelevant.
It is our moral imperative (his words) to reduce carbon emissions by any means possible as quickly as possible.
Our current political system and those in it don’t seem capable of doing what is needed.
“If Rudd really cared about climate change” he’d join the Greens.
However for an ALP PM, he does care. I don’t know how many in the government care, but Wong is another one who seems to care. They care more than the general populace that’s for sure.
“If Rudd really cared about climate change” he’d join the Greens.
However for an ALP PM, he does care. I don’t know how many in the government care, but Wong is another one who seems to care. They care more than the general populace that’s for sure.
Wong has long seemed to me to be an impressive figure, even if she is pushing a rotten brief.
Now if she had our brief, that would be a huge advantage.
Wong has long seemed to me to be an impressive figure, even if she is pushing a rotten brief.
Now if she had our brief, that would be a huge advantage.
Quite a few people here have recognised the realpolitik of this situation. Rudd does not control the Senate and cannot create any sort of package that would be a reasonable fit with enough votes in the Senate to pass. Also, he has an election coming up with an opposition that has proved to be shamelessly effective in peddling lies and misinformation about climate change. Talking about the Greens is totally irrelevant, they’re still short Fielding’s vote.
I don’t blame Rudd and the ALP for how they have tread this path generally, they have tried to stay within their democratic mandate and stayed re-electable. The biggest failure on their part has been their execrable failure to simply and clearly sell this package. Which they also made difficult with all of the bullshit rorts they added – but they were inevitable in this day and age.
The only thing that really matters to me is that there’s global action. And China and the US will come to an agreement or not, whatever stance Australia takes. Me personally, I’ve gotten the family carbon budget down into single figures per annum, done my bit, now it’s time to see if the world can fix this. Otherwise, it’s teaching my kids the resilience and skills needed for a much tougher future than we enjoyed.
Quite a few people here have recognised the realpolitik of this situation. Rudd does not control the Senate and cannot create any sort of package that would be a reasonable fit with enough votes in the Senate to pass. Also, he has an election coming up with an opposition that has proved to be shamelessly effective in peddling lies and misinformation about climate change. Talking about the Greens is totally irrelevant, they’re still short Fielding’s vote.
I don’t blame Rudd and the ALP for how they have tread this path generally, they have tried to stay within their democratic mandate and stayed re-electable. The biggest failure on their part has been their execrable failure to simply and clearly sell this package. Which they also made difficult with all of the bullshit rorts they added – but they were inevitable in this day and age.
The only thing that really matters to me is that there’s global action. And China and the US will come to an agreement or not, whatever stance Australia takes. Me personally, I’ve gotten the family carbon budget down into single figures per annum, done my bit, now it’s time to see if the world can fix this. Otherwise, it’s teaching my kids the resilience and skills needed for a much tougher future than we enjoyed.
Fran @48: You say:
The point I would make in terms of electricity generation is that what we need is an acceleration of private investment. (Forgetting arguments re private and public ownership.) So all the government needs to expend is the cost of administration.
My view is that emissions reduction in the next 10 years will have to be largely driven by the clean-up of electricity. My guess is that, for the government to achieve its target of a 25% reduction on current emissions levels, we should be trying to reduce electricity related emissions by about 35% (17.5% of total) leaving 7.5% to be covered by things like introducing an RET style system to drive down the average fuel consumption of new cars (5%) plus other minor action.
My fear is that the government will be diverted into populous things (like the insulation program) that are actually very expensive ways of reducing emissions.
Fran @48: You say:
The point I would make in terms of electricity generation is that what we need is an acceleration of private investment. (Forgetting arguments re private and public ownership.) So all the government needs to expend is the cost of administration.
My view is that emissions reduction in the next 10 years will have to be largely driven by the clean-up of electricity. My guess is that, for the government to achieve its target of a 25% reduction on current emissions levels, we should be trying to reduce electricity related emissions by about 35% (17.5% of total) leaving 7.5% to be covered by things like introducing an RET style system to drive down the average fuel consumption of new cars (5%) plus other minor action.
My fear is that the government will be diverted into populous things (like the insulation program) that are actually very expensive ways of reducing emissions.
John D said:
Hmmm … in Australia I’d prefer the state to own the major generating assets and lease them to private operators. That makes it easier to regulate them because the terms of the lease can be varied to suit policy. It also relieves us of the expense of paying out an operators of a plant if we decide it ought to be upgraded or torn down and replaced.
Governments are good at rasing funds. They are good at spreading risk and funds cost volatility. If they lease out the plants, the plant operator gets greater certainty on cost and can arrange matters to deliver to specification of the tender at the lowest possible cost. If the operator needs to upgrade equipment it can choose the best equipment in marginal terms and then negotiate with the state to lease it with state backing at very low cost.
John D said:
Hmmm … in Australia I’d prefer the state to own the major generating assets and lease them to private operators. That makes it easier to regulate them because the terms of the lease can be varied to suit policy. It also relieves us of the expense of paying out an operators of a plant if we decide it ought to be upgraded or torn down and replaced.
Governments are good at rasing funds. They are good at spreading risk and funds cost volatility. If they lease out the plants, the plant operator gets greater certainty on cost and can arrange matters to deliver to specification of the tender at the lowest possible cost. If the operator needs to upgrade equipment it can choose the best equipment in marginal terms and then negotiate with the state to lease it with state backing at very low cost.
Salient Green @51: Why should you be offended that I don’t think Richard Heinberg knows what he’s talking about? I’m glad you’ve gone for a calming walk in the Flinders – your overreaction suggested you need it.
.
Fran @48, the $652 million is for pilot projects. Most of the renewable energy capacity that is added over the next few years will be because of the RET which, contra Brian @46, shows no sign of no longer being mandatory. Obviously though, without a national emissions cap and a mechanism for driving them down, the RET scheme on its own won’t stop national emissions from climbing.
Salient Green @51: Why should you be offended that I don’t think Richard Heinberg knows what he’s talking about? I’m glad you’ve gone for a calming walk in the Flinders – your overreaction suggested you need it.
.
Fran @48, the $652 million is for pilot projects. Most of the renewable energy capacity that is added over the next few years will be because of the RET which, contra Brian @46, shows no sign of no longer being mandatory. Obviously though, without a national emissions cap and a mechanism for driving them down, the RET scheme on its own won’t stop national emissions from climbing.
Just a thought, but what is wrong with changing the tax regulations to remove petrol/diesel/gas and brown coal produced power from allowable tax deductions?
Effectively a carbon tax, but immediately and simply giving industry an incentive to reduce their carbon footprint. And administratively pretty easy too I should think since companies would not need to keep records even for tax purposes of purchases of those commodities.
Just a thought, but what is wrong with changing the tax regulations to remove petrol/diesel/gas and brown coal produced power from allowable tax deductions?
Effectively a carbon tax, but immediately and simply giving industry an incentive to reduce their carbon footprint. And administratively pretty easy too I should think since companies would not need to keep records even for tax purposes of purchases of those commodities.
I think it is an issue of the wider political culture, Fran. The thing that always strikes me about the debate in this country in the near-complete lack of a sensible comparative perspective. If we had one, absurd statements like ‘we shouldn’t go out ahead of the rest of the world on this’ wouldnt last 5 mins in the public sphere.
Obviously, I could sit here and blame the meeja, the politcal elties, the Carbon indistruy, but I do thinkl we all have to take some responsibility for that. I like to think people here do, to some degree, by participating in a public discussion.
I think it is an issue of the wider political culture, Fran. The thing that always strikes me about the debate in this country in the near-complete lack of a sensible comparative perspective. If we had one, absurd statements like ‘we shouldn’t go out ahead of the rest of the world on this’ wouldnt last 5 mins in the public sphere.
Obviously, I could sit here and blame the meeja, the politcal elties, the Carbon indistruy, but I do thinkl we all have to take some responsibility for that. I like to think people here do, to some degree, by participating in a public discussion.
Like the man says, “So far the Australian polity has preferred the comfort of ignorance.’
Go Ross! http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/13/2898800.htm
Like the man says, “So far the Australian polity has preferred the comfort of ignorance.’
Go Ross! http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/13/2898800.htm
Welcome back to Ryan, Brian. I’m sure MJ’s not a denier – hell he seems progressive compared to some *Labor* twonks, but I won’t be sad if he goes… this new Steven Miles Labor ring-in is apparently “a national Councillor of the Australian Conservation Foundation and is passionate about protecting our environment”. We’ll see.
Welcome back to Ryan, Brian. I’m sure MJ’s not a denier – hell he seems progressive compared to some *Labor* twonks, but I won’t be sad if he goes… this new Steven Miles Labor ring-in is apparently “a national Councillor of the Australian Conservation Foundation and is passionate about protecting our environment”. We’ll see.
“How many times have you heard the ignorant statement that Australia is justified in delaying action on climate change because China and the rest of the world are doing nothing?” – Garnaut.
JWH sowed this seed deep into our psyche 5 years ago. His mantra was that China was to blame and that little ol’ Oz was pure as the driven snow.
At that time the ALP was only just waking up to CC and provided little opposition. If they failed to convince the electorate of CC last year, then it’s because they were very late to the idea themselves.
“How many times have you heard the ignorant statement that Australia is justified in delaying action on climate change because China and the rest of the world are doing nothing?” – Garnaut.
JWH sowed this seed deep into our psyche 5 years ago. His mantra was that China was to blame and that little ol’ Oz was pure as the driven snow.
At that time the ALP was only just waking up to CC and provided little opposition. If they failed to convince the electorate of CC last year, then it’s because they were very late to the idea themselves.
Cheers, kuke.
Tiim M @ 61, seems you are right about the MRET. No one best source, but googling indicates that Rudd’s RET expands the MRET rather than replaces it. I haven’t been across the detail and got my information from a news report some time ago.
On the $652 million, that’s over 4 years, so it isn’t much. The full spiel on what it’s for, from the AFR article is:
About $160m pa is not much for that sort of brief.
Cheers, kuke.
Tiim M @ 61, seems you are right about the MRET. No one best source, but googling indicates that Rudd’s RET expands the MRET rather than replaces it. I haven’t been across the detail and got my information from a news report some time ago.
On the $652 million, that’s over 4 years, so it isn’t much. The full spiel on what it’s for, from the AFR article is:
About $160m pa is not much for that sort of brief.
Fran @ 54, there has been talk of a road congestion tax. I favour that and registration charges over a fuel levy because it can be varied so that people who genuinely do need to use their vehicles over long distances where there is no public transport are not subsidising the rest.
Quiggin in the AFR today suggested a 5c a litre fuel levy with the proceeds hypothecated to roll out charging networks for electric vehicles.
That was just one suggestion in his piece which I hope he posts. His main thrust was that we need to get on with doing something. If not a general carbon tax then look at what can be done in specific sectors.
He doesn’t say this, but we could just mandate that all new electricity production capacity be renewable. Perhaps with gas backup for continuity.
Fran @ 54, there has been talk of a road congestion tax. I favour that and registration charges over a fuel levy because it can be varied so that people who genuinely do need to use their vehicles over long distances where there is no public transport are not subsidising the rest.
Quiggin in the AFR today suggested a 5c a litre fuel levy with the proceeds hypothecated to roll out charging networks for electric vehicles.
That was just one suggestion in his piece which I hope he posts. His main thrust was that we need to get on with doing something. If not a general carbon tax then look at what can be done in specific sectors.
He doesn’t say this, but we could just mandate that all new electricity production capacity be renewable. Perhaps with gas backup for continuity.
My last for the night.
What I’d like all political parties, including The Greens, to do is to explain how they are going to save the Great Barrier Reef. That would mean they would have to address concerns about temperature, ocean acidity and sea level rise.
From that they should be able to work out temperature and atmospheric emissions levels that should not be exceeded and at what level of stabilisation we should aim.
From that they should be able to work out what long term and short term targets the need for the world and for Australia.
Eventually they should work out what needs to be done now and within various planning cycles domestically and in terms of international advocacy. I would suggest that the relevant scientists will tell them the 450ppm and 2C just doesn’t cut it. I suspect 1C and 350ppm might be the go.
So if the GBR is to be sacrificed, which I’d suggest is implicit in most of the planning going on around the world, let’s have it out on the table.
My last for the night.
What I’d like all political parties, including The Greens, to do is to explain how they are going to save the Great Barrier Reef. That would mean they would have to address concerns about temperature, ocean acidity and sea level rise.
From that they should be able to work out temperature and atmospheric emissions levels that should not be exceeded and at what level of stabilisation we should aim.
From that they should be able to work out what long term and short term targets the need for the world and for Australia.
Eventually they should work out what needs to be done now and within various planning cycles domestically and in terms of international advocacy. I would suggest that the relevant scientists will tell them the 450ppm and 2C just doesn’t cut it. I suspect 1C and 350ppm might be the go.
So if the GBR is to be sacrificed, which I’d suggest is implicit in most of the planning going on around the world, let’s have it out on the table.
Brian@68
I disagree. Whatever one does about the issue of emissions, it is in my view important to get the price signals right to force internalisation of that which is externalised in driving — and registration charges simply don’t do that. A rational system of distance-based costing, which is sensitive to the various externalities attaching to driving offers more scope for reconciling rational decision-making and the collective good.
The reality is that one’s prospective harm to others is very much related to the extent one uses the road, and of course the more one uses the road, the more notional benefit one gets. Shifting the cost balance in favour of upfront charges and reducing the marginal cost subverts the collective good and prejudices the interest of people who are doing what we would hope — using their road access judiciously. These also discriminate in favour of urban commuters and against people in rural areas, who contribute very little to urban congestion. And without removing registration charges from the mix, the scope for shifting this balance is quite limited.
Moreover, only very substantial costs are going to shift road use behaviour or generate the kinds of funds we would want to upgrade services. 5 cents per litre is not going to do it. Allowing that 5 million vehicles drove an average of 20000 km per year and consumed an average of 10L per 100K we are looking at about $400 million per year — which is nothing like the base you would want for a green car fund or infrastructure. That extra line out to Cronulla was only 6km long and that cost about $400million.
Brian@68
I disagree. Whatever one does about the issue of emissions, it is in my view important to get the price signals right to force internalisation of that which is externalised in driving — and registration charges simply don’t do that. A rational system of distance-based costing, which is sensitive to the various externalities attaching to driving offers more scope for reconciling rational decision-making and the collective good.
The reality is that one’s prospective harm to others is very much related to the extent one uses the road, and of course the more one uses the road, the more notional benefit one gets. Shifting the cost balance in favour of upfront charges and reducing the marginal cost subverts the collective good and prejudices the interest of people who are doing what we would hope — using their road access judiciously. These also discriminate in favour of urban commuters and against people in rural areas, who contribute very little to urban congestion. And without removing registration charges from the mix, the scope for shifting this balance is quite limited.
Moreover, only very substantial costs are going to shift road use behaviour or generate the kinds of funds we would want to upgrade services. 5 cents per litre is not going to do it. Allowing that 5 million vehicles drove an average of 20000 km per year and consumed an average of 10L per 100K we are looking at about $400 million per year — which is nothing like the base you would want for a green car fund or infrastructure. That extra line out to Cronulla was only 6km long and that cost about $400million.
Fran, I’m not rusted on to any particular approach, but I’m attracted to the notion of specific interventions that are designed to change behavious in ways that are quite transparent to voters. Quiggin was suggesting a 5c per litre charge because it was small (he says about equal to a carbon price of $20 per ton). It would fall on everyone, including people who have to drive two hours to reach a supermarket or drive considerable distances to take the kids to school or to conduct their business with a ute or a van to carry equipment etc. The amount raised is used in a way that will extend the infrastructure which together with advances in battery technologies and electric drive trains in larger vehicles will allow them in the future to use low carbon options in choice of transport.
It’s not instead of other forms of taxing motor vehicle use, but in addition.
Congestion taxes can be applied in different ways. In this program I was attracted to the notion that you can use the chip technology used in Brisbane now for toll roads were you have a device in your car with a dollar credit in it which is debited when you go through a gantry when entering built up areas. How much you are charged can be varied according to the time of the day or even how much congestion there is on the roads. Also the device you use can be programmed to work at a different charge rate, or even no charge for essential services such as ambulances. This happens now in buses here, where I have a card that charges me at a different rate because I’m an old guy.
A congestion charge can deliver substantial revenues and could be hypothecated to use for some social good, like improving or subsidising public transport, again in a manner which is seen as sensible to voters.
With registration, people who want to drive tanks in the city should be appropriately penalised, for example.
The principle is that there are technologies there that can allow us to shape changes in how we go about our business in ways that are transparent and make a difference without using blunt instruments that penalise indiscriminately. It’s really up to politicians advised by engineers, town planners etc to come up with the specifics. But my feeling is that we should go down this kind of track in the first instance, as it provides change which is obvious to everyone, we can see how it works as we go and adjust accordingly, can’t be opposed as a ‘big new tax on everything’ and will have minimal unintended consequences. When we have reshaped the way we live I’d be more than happy to consider an emissions trading system to drive things further to mop up the areas that are not big enough or amenable in other ways to specific intelligent intervention.
Anyway I hope that conveys the way I’m thinking right now. I’m open to persuasion that there might be better approaches.
Fran, I’m not rusted on to any particular approach, but I’m attracted to the notion of specific interventions that are designed to change behavious in ways that are quite transparent to voters. Quiggin was suggesting a 5c per litre charge because it was small (he says about equal to a carbon price of $20 per ton). It would fall on everyone, including people who have to drive two hours to reach a supermarket or drive considerable distances to take the kids to school or to conduct their business with a ute or a van to carry equipment etc. The amount raised is used in a way that will extend the infrastructure which together with advances in battery technologies and electric drive trains in larger vehicles will allow them in the future to use low carbon options in choice of transport.
It’s not instead of other forms of taxing motor vehicle use, but in addition.
Congestion taxes can be applied in different ways. In this program I was attracted to the notion that you can use the chip technology used in Brisbane now for toll roads were you have a device in your car with a dollar credit in it which is debited when you go through a gantry when entering built up areas. How much you are charged can be varied according to the time of the day or even how much congestion there is on the roads. Also the device you use can be programmed to work at a different charge rate, or even no charge for essential services such as ambulances. This happens now in buses here, where I have a card that charges me at a different rate because I’m an old guy.
A congestion charge can deliver substantial revenues and could be hypothecated to use for some social good, like improving or subsidising public transport, again in a manner which is seen as sensible to voters.
With registration, people who want to drive tanks in the city should be appropriately penalised, for example.
The principle is that there are technologies there that can allow us to shape changes in how we go about our business in ways that are transparent and make a difference without using blunt instruments that penalise indiscriminately. It’s really up to politicians advised by engineers, town planners etc to come up with the specifics. But my feeling is that we should go down this kind of track in the first instance, as it provides change which is obvious to everyone, we can see how it works as we go and adjust accordingly, can’t be opposed as a ‘big new tax on everything’ and will have minimal unintended consequences. When we have reshaped the way we live I’d be more than happy to consider an emissions trading system to drive things further to mop up the areas that are not big enough or amenable in other ways to specific intelligent intervention.
Anyway I hope that conveys the way I’m thinking right now. I’m open to persuasion that there might be better approaches.
It seems we largely agree … though I would want real-time charging with something like a meter in the vehicle, which would tick over as you drove, giving you the rate and the cumulative bill.
Part of changing the culture around drving choice is to put pertinent information into the hands of peeople into the right time window for them — ideally, as close to the moment when they are forced to make a choice. That’s as true in life as it is in schools.
In schools, if you want behaviour change, you must ensure your sanctions or rewards are close to the behaviours you’re restraining or predisposing are very close in time to them. The sanctions and rewards can be much tinier for the same result if you can achieve this.
In a car, a constantly moving meter would prevent the kind of cognitive dissonance that informs poor driving choices. Knowing that if you speed you will certainly be fined will stop people speeding even if the fine is only $10. If every three months of driving when you don’t get a caution, you get some reward, even a trifling one like a letter of commendation and maybe at the end of a year a big certificate and a glossy plate to stick on the back of your car, people can be motivated by that.
So my thinking is part behavioural economics and part general utility.
It seems we largely agree … though I would want real-time charging with something like a meter in the vehicle, which would tick over as you drove, giving you the rate and the cumulative bill.
Part of changing the culture around drving choice is to put pertinent information into the hands of peeople into the right time window for them — ideally, as close to the moment when they are forced to make a choice. That’s as true in life as it is in schools.
In schools, if you want behaviour change, you must ensure your sanctions or rewards are close to the behaviours you’re restraining or predisposing are very close in time to them. The sanctions and rewards can be much tinier for the same result if you can achieve this.
In a car, a constantly moving meter would prevent the kind of cognitive dissonance that informs poor driving choices. Knowing that if you speed you will certainly be fined will stop people speeding even if the fine is only $10. If every three months of driving when you don’t get a caution, you get some reward, even a trifling one like a letter of commendation and maybe at the end of a year a big certificate and a glossy plate to stick on the back of your car, people can be motivated by that.
So my thinking is part behavioural economics and part general utility.
Yea to behavioural economics and general utility, Fran.
Overall you take a pie chart (that one’s Canada, but I mean the Australian version) and develop a strategy and a plan for each part of the pie, plus homes and buildings. They don’t show up as such because they mostly draw on power produced elsewhere.
Priority is given to electricity generation because it affects so many other areas and is the key to making significant gains in transport.
An ETS will eventually mop up those parts of “other” which may be independent of the grid and be useful in sorting out inter-country issues which are not amenable to rational planning.
Yea to behavioural economics and general utility, Fran.
Overall you take a pie chart (that one’s Canada, but I mean the Australian version) and develop a strategy and a plan for each part of the pie, plus homes and buildings. They don’t show up as such because they mostly draw on power produced elsewhere.
Priority is given to electricity generation because it affects so many other areas and is the key to making significant gains in transport.
An ETS will eventually mop up those parts of “other” which may be independent of the grid and be useful in sorting out inter-country issues which are not amenable to rational planning.
The other point to note is that we aren’t (or shouldn’t be) interested merely in CO2 emissions, as important as that question is. We need to be considering the whole-of-environment and social costs of driving (and other industrial activity).
All-electric vehicles, though much better in many respects than conventionally-powered vehicles, still get in volved in accidents and clogging up the roads. They still damage road surfaces, and their batteries still require the production of toxic chemicals. The metals and petro-chemical polymers of which they are composed must still be harvested and worked and trasported. And of course, at the back end, unless the power stored in their batteries is from near-zero emission sources, (and even waste biomass is not that if you count particulate and CO) then the car use still has an emissions footprint.
So we have to chase the goal of fewer vehicle miles per year, and as we approach the ideal, fewer vehicles and vehicles that last longer before they have to be disposed of, and that are composed of largely recyclable materials.
With plasma converters this latter might actually be technologically more plausible than one would otherwise suppose.
The other point to note is that we aren’t (or shouldn’t be) interested merely in CO2 emissions, as important as that question is. We need to be considering the whole-of-environment and social costs of driving (and other industrial activity).
All-electric vehicles, though much better in many respects than conventionally-powered vehicles, still get in volved in accidents and clogging up the roads. They still damage road surfaces, and their batteries still require the production of toxic chemicals. The metals and petro-chemical polymers of which they are composed must still be harvested and worked and trasported. And of course, at the back end, unless the power stored in their batteries is from near-zero emission sources, (and even waste biomass is not that if you count particulate and CO) then the car use still has an emissions footprint.
So we have to chase the goal of fewer vehicle miles per year, and as we approach the ideal, fewer vehicles and vehicles that last longer before they have to be disposed of, and that are composed of largely recyclable materials.
With plasma converters this latter might actually be technologically more plausible than one would otherwise suppose.
Further to JohnD @59, we have some data from Brad Page, chief executive of the Energy Supply Association of Australia:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/industry-at-standstill-with-power-plans-on-ice/story-e6frg6zo-1225865198479
He says that generation capacity at June 09 was almost 51,000 megawatts, and we will need 65,000 megawatts by 2020. He claims that analysis from the industry shows that at least $100 bn is needed to supply this extra 14,000 megawatts over the next 10 years. Furthermore it takes 5-7 years to plan and construct a large power plant, if everything goes according to plan.
OK, so I make that $100 bn for 14 Gigawatts, or about $7/watt installed. This has to be in the ballpark of a lot of smaller renewable power systems?
BlueGen units (household-scale power and water, using a fuel cell running on mains gas) are expected to cost $10,000 for 2 kW, i.e. about $5/watt installed.
Household solar PV is currently about $12,000 for a 1.5 kW system before rebates, i.e. about $8/watt installed.
So, even putting aside bigger systems, as obviously preferred by Brad Page and his mates, if 7 million Aussie households installed either 2 kW of either BlueGen or solar PV over the next decade, then we would have our 14 Gigawatts of extra power supply without needing any more coal-fired power plants.
Incidentally, 14 Gigawatts out of a total of 65 Gigawatts, is 21% of low-C power. Wasn’t the target about 20% by 2020? It can’t be that hard, can it?
So why doesn’t the Rudd government put a bit more emphasis on solving the problem incrementally with micropower solutions?
Further to JohnD @59, we have some data from Brad Page, chief executive of the Energy Supply Association of Australia:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/industry-at-standstill-with-power-plans-on-ice/story-e6frg6zo-1225865198479
He says that generation capacity at June 09 was almost 51,000 megawatts, and we will need 65,000 megawatts by 2020. He claims that analysis from the industry shows that at least $100 bn is needed to supply this extra 14,000 megawatts over the next 10 years. Furthermore it takes 5-7 years to plan and construct a large power plant, if everything goes according to plan.
OK, so I make that $100 bn for 14 Gigawatts, or about $7/watt installed. This has to be in the ballpark of a lot of smaller renewable power systems?
BlueGen units (household-scale power and water, using a fuel cell running on mains gas) are expected to cost $10,000 for 2 kW, i.e. about $5/watt installed.
Household solar PV is currently about $12,000 for a 1.5 kW system before rebates, i.e. about $8/watt installed.
So, even putting aside bigger systems, as obviously preferred by Brad Page and his mates, if 7 million Aussie households installed either 2 kW of either BlueGen or solar PV over the next decade, then we would have our 14 Gigawatts of extra power supply without needing any more coal-fired power plants.
Incidentally, 14 Gigawatts out of a total of 65 Gigawatts, is 21% of low-C power. Wasn’t the target about 20% by 2020? It can’t be that hard, can it?
So why doesn’t the Rudd government put a bit more emphasis on solving the problem incrementally with micropower solutions?
I know energy traders Elise would quietly agree with you – and are well aware of transmission loss.
I know energy traders Elise would quietly agree with you – and are well aware of transmission loss.
I’m going to be really disciplined here and not do a YAND. I will agree with you and Huggy and BilB on one thing though.
We absolutely do need to have a program of trying to build industrial-scale clean energy systems.
I don’t see how your home-based systems can do what you propose. What you have to consider is not the average capacity factor but the capacity credit in those systems. How much can each system guarantee to supply at a minimum at every given moment. Once you work that out, you can work out how much storage above the system you need and then see how much per kW the system really costs. It’s no use saying oh over the year this system averages 15% of rated capacity if for 20% of the time it supplies only 3% and a further 10% of the time it’s down at 1%, especially if this downward slew occurs when the system is demanding more than the average. You’ve got to build for the worst case scenario or accept regular load-shedding. If the only way to guarantee that won’t happen is to build gas units and have them ready or massive storage, then your system’s true emissions profile includes all that gas or the cost of all that storage.
As I said the other day here — lets get a budget for doing industrial scale projects, set up specs on delivery and performance, and invite engineers and developers to build them within this budget. Then we can find out what is feasible and what isn’t. It would be worth blowing most of $20-25 billion, if that is what it took, to try getting 5GW or so of reliable renewable capacity by 2020.
If someone thinks they can build 500GW of deliverable CST-based power for 8000 hopurs per year for 2.2 billion or so, then I say let them try. If, as I suspect, this proves impossible, by 2015 we can stop this pointless argument and move forward.
I’m going to be really disciplined here and not do a YAND. I will agree with you and Huggy and BilB on one thing though.
We absolutely do need to have a program of trying to build industrial-scale clean energy systems.
I don’t see how your home-based systems can do what you propose. What you have to consider is not the average capacity factor but the capacity credit in those systems. How much can each system guarantee to supply at a minimum at every given moment. Once you work that out, you can work out how much storage above the system you need and then see how much per kW the system really costs. It’s no use saying oh over the year this system averages 15% of rated capacity if for 20% of the time it supplies only 3% and a further 10% of the time it’s down at 1%, especially if this downward slew occurs when the system is demanding more than the average. You’ve got to build for the worst case scenario or accept regular load-shedding. If the only way to guarantee that won’t happen is to build gas units and have them ready or massive storage, then your system’s true emissions profile includes all that gas or the cost of all that storage.
As I said the other day here — lets get a budget for doing industrial scale projects, set up specs on delivery and performance, and invite engineers and developers to build them within this budget. Then we can find out what is feasible and what isn’t. It would be worth blowing most of $20-25 billion, if that is what it took, to try getting 5GW or so of reliable renewable capacity by 2020.
If someone thinks they can build 500GW of deliverable CST-based power for 8000 hopurs per year for 2.2 billion or so, then I say let them try. If, as I suspect, this proves impossible, by 2015 we can stop this pointless argument and move forward.
Fran, the govt announced on budget night a shortlist of 8 solar energy projects in the 150-250MW range, 4 in solar voltaic and 4 in solar thermal. You’ll find the announcement here if you scroll down a bit.
This correspondent is underwhelmed.
Fran, the govt announced on budget night a shortlist of 8 solar energy projects in the 150-250MW range, 4 in solar voltaic and 4 in solar thermal. You’ll find the announcement here if you scroll down a bit.
This correspondent is underwhelmed.
Thanks for that Brian, I think.
It’s very depressing, but it does underline why the government abandoning the CPRS was no bad thing.
Until we can have a government that is serious on these matters, the safest thing for those of us who are is to hope the government does nothing that will make us all look bad.
Thanks for that Brian, I think.
It’s very depressing, but it does underline why the government abandoning the CPRS was no bad thing.
Until we can have a government that is serious on these matters, the safest thing for those of us who are is to hope the government does nothing that will make us all look bad.
Fran, it’s certainly not confidence-inspiring. It’s hard for me to judge whether the Herald Sun writer is being a bit harsh. Companies like AGL and Transfield I think are trying to transition to the low carbon economy of the future.
What is lacking is an overall feeling that the economy is transitioning in that direction. The CPRS with its central strategy of preserving coal generated power into the 2030s didn’t help. So we are left with both parties doing the minimum to provide a sop to the electorate.
The budget also flagged a cut of $200 million in the $1 billion provided to support electric cars – through lack of interest on the part of car manufacturers, apparently.
My working title for the post had a phrase about Australia’s strategy of coasting at the back of the peloton, in cycling terms. Sadly that’s about the long and short of it.
Fran, it’s certainly not confidence-inspiring. It’s hard for me to judge whether the Herald Sun writer is being a bit harsh. Companies like AGL and Transfield I think are trying to transition to the low carbon economy of the future.
What is lacking is an overall feeling that the economy is transitioning in that direction. The CPRS with its central strategy of preserving coal generated power into the 2030s didn’t help. So we are left with both parties doing the minimum to provide a sop to the electorate.
The budget also flagged a cut of $200 million in the $1 billion provided to support electric cars – through lack of interest on the part of car manufacturers, apparently.
My working title for the post had a phrase about Australia’s strategy of coasting at the back of the peloton, in cycling terms. Sadly that’s about the long and short of it.
Brian
I long ago accepted that the ALP in this country was always going to be, in policy terms, a lot closer to the Coalition on any important matter of policy than they were to me. That’s one reason I have not voted for them since 1977.
Accordingly, I don’t expect that, even on policies to which they pay lipservice, they will be anywhere as enthusiastic as I am in realising their goals. Still it would be nice to think they could respond proportionately as enthusiastically.
I’d like to see about $20-25 billion devoted over the next 3 years to developing industrial scale clean energy options. Let’s accept for the moment that they will ignore the elephant in the room and stick with official renewables. Let’s accept, based on their $652 million figure, that they are about 2.5%-3% as interested as I am in this. At least let them do one serious project aimed at seeing baseload electricity from renewables start.
If they could get any renewable project (or combination of projects) to deliver 1.2TWh of electricity to the system in a year at a levelised cost only three times that of of average coal for a build and connect cost of $652 million I’d regard that as a stunning success, and advocate scaling that model up right now. There’s a geothermal brown coal seam concept in Victoria that could maybe meet that standard. Some people say CST could do something like that. I’d love to find out.
Even if the project only produced 20% of that output at that cost (i.e. 0.24 TWh in a year) but did it highly reliably (i.e about 150MW rated with about 18% availability) I’d regard that as not a complete waste, since we would have learned some useful things about what would work and what the constraints were in practice.
But what is the earthly point of farnarkling about with silly projects that cannot address any of the fundamental questions?
Brian
I long ago accepted that the ALP in this country was always going to be, in policy terms, a lot closer to the Coalition on any important matter of policy than they were to me. That’s one reason I have not voted for them since 1977.
Accordingly, I don’t expect that, even on policies to which they pay lipservice, they will be anywhere as enthusiastic as I am in realising their goals. Still it would be nice to think they could respond proportionately as enthusiastically.
I’d like to see about $20-25 billion devoted over the next 3 years to developing industrial scale clean energy options. Let’s accept for the moment that they will ignore the elephant in the room and stick with official renewables. Let’s accept, based on their $652 million figure, that they are about 2.5%-3% as interested as I am in this. At least let them do one serious project aimed at seeing baseload electricity from renewables start.
If they could get any renewable project (or combination of projects) to deliver 1.2TWh of electricity to the system in a year at a levelised cost only three times that of of average coal for a build and connect cost of $652 million I’d regard that as a stunning success, and advocate scaling that model up right now. There’s a geothermal brown coal seam concept in Victoria that could maybe meet that standard. Some people say CST could do something like that. I’d love to find out.
Even if the project only produced 20% of that output at that cost (i.e. 0.24 TWh in a year) but did it highly reliably (i.e about 150MW rated with about 18% availability) I’d regard that as not a complete waste, since we would have learned some useful things about what would work and what the constraints were in practice.
But what is the earthly point of farnarkling about with silly projects that cannot address any of the fundamental questions?
Fran, there was a segment on The science Show recently on Latrobe Valley geothermal. They are still working out their ideas and won’t be shovel-ready for a while.
Using supercritical CO2 has to be new.
From a comment by the CEO Panax Geothermal at Penola claim to be much further along. They also claim to be quite cheap.
Fran, there was a segment on The science Show recently on Latrobe Valley geothermal. They are still working out their ideas and won’t be shovel-ready for a while.
Using supercritical CO2 has to be new.
From a comment by the CEO Panax Geothermal at Penola claim to be much further along. They also claim to be quite cheap.
Thinking of interim steps we could take to put an effective price on emissions, a few days ago, someone (here I think) proposed the elegantly simple idea of simply making energy costs non-tax deductible. At the time, I didn’t give this idea the attention it deserved, but on reflection, with some tweaking, I think this might be the simplest route of all to putting a price on emissions. I can’t recall who suggested it, but whoever it was … well done you. I’m going to start hawking my own version of this to the various politicians I harass on a regular basis.
No new laws need to be passed by the senate or even the House of Reps for a measure like this, so tough luck Liberals. No complex accounting and compliance would be necessary so little new bureaucracy would be needed, making transaction costs nearly nothing. It wouldn’t just cover Australia’s 1000 largest companies either. Every business would be in.
As compensation, the government could simply
a) set aside 80% of the revenue gained for lifting the bottom tax threshold
b) use the other 20% to give cash (quarterly and scaled from the bottom up) to people under $22,000 who won’t get enough under a) to compensate them for price rises.
So it’s revenue neutral. No GBNT arguments, as tax is the same.
You could allow those using certified low-net-carbon energy in business to claim this as a deduction based on the proportion of their energy coming from non-thermal fossil sources. You could even allow householders buying certified low carbon energy to sell these credits to companies or others via an exchange like e-bay, allowing renewables to compete in the household energy sector. You could introduce it with almost immediate effect — say July 2011. To be consistent, you’d remove fuels subsidies in mining, forestry and agriculture.
I don’t see a downside to this. The government argues that it is irrational to subsidise the consumption of fossil fuels by favourable tax treatment, and that if these costs really are essential to business, then they should be passed onto end users of the goods and services to whom we give the funds clawed back and who can then decide whether they as individuals need to accept these costs or make other arrangements.
Thinking of interim steps we could take to put an effective price on emissions, a few days ago, someone (here I think) proposed the elegantly simple idea of simply making energy costs non-tax deductible. At the time, I didn’t give this idea the attention it deserved, but on reflection, with some tweaking, I think this might be the simplest route of all to putting a price on emissions. I can’t recall who suggested it, but whoever it was … well done you. I’m going to start hawking my own version of this to the various politicians I harass on a regular basis.
No new laws need to be passed by the senate or even the House of Reps for a measure like this, so tough luck Liberals. No complex accounting and compliance would be necessary so little new bureaucracy would be needed, making transaction costs nearly nothing. It wouldn’t just cover Australia’s 1000 largest companies either. Every business would be in.
As compensation, the government could simply
a) set aside 80% of the revenue gained for lifting the bottom tax threshold
b) use the other 20% to give cash (quarterly and scaled from the bottom up) to people under $22,000 who won’t get enough under a) to compensate them for price rises.
So it’s revenue neutral. No GBNT arguments, as tax is the same.
You could allow those using certified low-net-carbon energy in business to claim this as a deduction based on the proportion of their energy coming from non-thermal fossil sources. You could even allow householders buying certified low carbon energy to sell these credits to companies or others via an exchange like e-bay, allowing renewables to compete in the household energy sector. You could introduce it with almost immediate effect — say July 2011. To be consistent, you’d remove fuels subsidies in mining, forestry and agriculture.
I don’t see a downside to this. The government argues that it is irrational to subsidise the consumption of fossil fuels by favourable tax treatment, and that if these costs really are essential to business, then they should be passed onto end users of the goods and services to whom we give the funds clawed back and who can then decide whether they as individuals need to accept these costs or make other arrangements.
That was me @ 62 Fran.
I would also say that in its simplest form it actually reduces accounting costs since no receipts are used for tax purposes, and are only needed for internal cost reporting purposes.
It can also be phased in, targeted, tweaked for various forms of carbon usage.
That was me @ 62 Fran.
I would also say that in its simplest form it actually reduces accounting costs since no receipts are used for tax purposes, and are only needed for internal cost reporting purposes.
It can also be phased in, targeted, tweaked for various forms of carbon usage.
Well thanks again, Marks. (Ha … an ironic pun occurs, but now that it does, it seems too obvious to do).
I wish I‘d thought of it, but it’s good to be able to give credit to who did.
Well thanks again, Marks. (Ha … an ironic pun occurs, but now that it does, it seems too obvious to do).
I wish I‘d thought of it, but it’s good to be able to give credit to who did.