This guest post is by John Davidson. John is a process engineer who has spent most of his life in the construction and mining industries.
Since their last change of leaders both Labor and the Coalition have placed “putting a price on carbon” as the key driver of climate action on indefinite hold. They also look like moving to some form of direct action for at least the next few years. In addition, while the polls are continuing to show support for climate action this support has softened since Copenhagen. There is a reluctance to support changes that will have much effect on people’s lives or the economy, particularly if certain large countries with much lower per capita emissions than Australia don’t start reducing their emissions first. (In 2007, even the US per capita figure for emissions from the consumption and flaring of fossil fuels was 9% lower than Australia.)
So in this changing political environment does it still make sense to continue urging the Labor party to include putting a price on carbon as part of their election promises or to concentrate on arguing for an effective direct action program?
I have long argued in favour of a simple climate action plan that uses various forms of direct action to drive climate action instead of an ETS (or anything else that depends on putting a price on carbon.) Direct because direct action has the potential to achieve targets with lower price increases and more certainty that the planned outcomes will actually be achieved. Simple because it is easier to sell something politically when people have some chance of understanding what is proposed and how it will affect them personally. Simple, because we need to get some serious real action started early in the next parliamentary term instead of wasting another three years doing little more than work on the next grand climate action plan.
However, a simple direct action plan is no guarantee of a good outcome. If too much of it depends on unproven technology (such as geosequestration) it can become an excuse for more procrastination. If it gets taken over by emotional arguments against various technologies (such as gas fired power) it will reduce what can be achieved within politically realistic price restraints. If decisions are being made on the basis of marginal seat politics, special interests and fear of the political muscle of big polluters it could become just as bad (if not worse) than what CPRS became.
So the aim of this post is firstly to reiterate arguments against proposals for an “introductory” carbon tax and then set out what I believe should be the core of Labor’s climate action proposal for the next three years. I will be arguing that Labor’s policy should be based the following principles:
- 1. Existing programs should be continued until something better is in place and working.
2. The initial focus for the next term should be on getting serious action started on cleaning up electricity (including the possibility of the replacement of coal-fired with gas) and reducing the fuel consumption of new cars.
3. The nominated emission reduction target should be covered by the action to clean up electricity. All other gains and personal efforts should be treated as a bonus for the next 10 years.
The problem with “introductory” carbon taxes:
Recent experience with MRET suggests that the price of carbon must be at least $40/tonne CO2 (=¢4.3/kWh for black coal power) for investment in renewables to be justified. This means that investors in renewable electricity need to be assured that the price of power will rise by at least ¢4.3/kWh above the current price before their investment is justified. However, if the carbon tax is only $30/tonne CO2, consumers will feel the pain of a ¢3.2/kWh price rise without any new investment in renewables. This reduced tax should be enough to justify the conversion of coal fired power plants to gas fired using CCGT (Combined Cycle Gas Turbine). However, if the price drops further, a point will be reached where conversion to gas cannot be justified either. Consumers will suffer the pain of increased power costs without any reduction in power generation related emissions.
By contrast, if we drive the investment by setting up of contracts for the supply of cleaner electricty, the average price of electricity only needs to ramp up slowly as the proportion of cleaner power increases. For example, this means that the increase in price of power after 50% of coal fired has been replaced by renewables would only have to be ¢2.15/kWh vs ¢4.3/kWh if carbon taxes are used to drive the investment. In addition, setting up of contracts will give a more certainty concerning the rate at which the cleaning takes place since the competitive tendering process sets the price. There is no need to second guess what carbon price is needed for investment to take place.
Targets and action:
Penny Wong has stated that the government’s current target is the equivalent of a 25% reduction in total emissions by 2020 from the current level. At the moment, the MRET power target is 20% renewables by 2020. (=10% reduction in total emissions.) The government also excluded transport from the CPRS so it is worth asking what else they expect to happen to give the 15% reduction in emissions not covered by cleaning up electricity?
We know that electricity will have to be cleaned up before 2050 so the simplest way of meeting the 2020 target would be to do it all by reducing power related emissions. (A 50% reduction in power related emissions would be required to give the 25% reduction in total emissions.) So what should happen during the next term of government as part of the plan to achieve this?
It will take 3 to 4 years between the signing of a contract and the cleaner power coming on line. Because of this all the contracts required to meet the 10 yr target would need to be signed before the end of 2016. On this basis it does not seem unreasonable for at least half the contracts required to meet the 2020 target to be signed before the end of the next term of government. (NOTE: The lag before new cleaner power comes on line means that it will take until at least 2014 before the power cleanup related price rises start. It is important to point this out.)
It should also be noted that the economics of using CCGT as part of the transition to clean power are better if all the investment in CCGT takes place as early as possible in the cleanup process. The calculations in this link also suggest that the use of CCGT may result in power prices that are lower enough compared with renewables to be politically significant. (As well as giving a lower average cost of power for the next 40 years even though all the CCGT will eventually be replaced by lower emission alternatives .)
All the above suggests that Labor policy should, for power related emissions:
- 1. Allow for a CCGT transition if this minimizes the cost of reducing emissions.
2. Commit to the signing of the contracts required to reduce emissions by at least 25% before the end of the next parliamentary term.
3. Allow the contracts required to cover the full 50% target to be signed as early as practical if enough CCGT tenders are competitive.
Reducing car related emissions:
Even if we agreed with Abbot that “AGW is a load of crap” there is still a strong case for reducing our dependence on imported oil. It makes sense for Labor to go to the election with at least some proposals for driving down oil consumption.
Doing something about the fuel consumption of cars would be a good starting point. ABS reported that the average fuel consumption of Australian passenger vehicles was 11.5 litres/100km in 2007 compared with 11.4 litres/100 km in 1963. See ABS fuel consumption data. There are some cars on the market that consume close to 3 litres/100 km and a number of low cost cars that consume less than 5 litres/100 km. Small plug in hybrids will reduce fuel consumption below one litre/100 km for typical urban trip mixes.
Our experience with recent fuel price jumps suggest that increasing the price of fuel has little effect on total fuel consumed. It would make a lot more sense to leave fuel prices unchanged and concentrate initially on driving down the average fuel consumption of new cars using an MRET style system. (Set a target and insist that producers and importers either keep the average fuel consumption of the cars they sell below this target or buy credits from companies that average below the targets.)
There are potential arguments about exceptions for large families and people who live or work in places where 4 wheel drives really do make a difference. Labor should consider going into the election with the broad outline of an MRET type system and a promise to consult before the system is finalized. They should emphasize that this approach does not require fuel or registration price increases.
What about the Greens?
There are a number of things I would like to see the Greens do. The most obvious is to continue to apply pressure to adopt more challenging targets and to argue for policies and actions that will help the willing to do more to reduce their carbon footprint.
I would also like the Greens to drop calls for putting a price on carbon, get behind direct action and push both sides of politics to do more. I would also like to see more emphasis placed on arguing for actions that get the maximum gain for minimum pain. (Minimum pain can include physical discomfort as well as cost.)
I would be particularly encouraged if opposition to the use of a gas transition was dropped. What really counts is the amount we emit over the next 40 years and our rate of emissions by 2050. By all means insist that investors in CCGT understand that their generators will only be allowed to run for a limited amount of time. But also recognize that we can do a lot more cleanup using CCGT before we run into price driven political barriers.
Thanks John
John D Morgan, a Ph.D. qualified physical chemist who works in private industry, has posted the following over at Professor Barry Brook’s Brave New Climate.
TCASE 12: A checklist for renewable energy plans
It’s much too long to repost here, but it’s an excellent primer on key questions for those seeking low carbon solutions in any industrial economy.
There’s also a link to an excellent discussion paper on energy issues in an Australian context by Seligman entitled Australian Sustainable Energy –
by the numbers
Thanks John
John D Morgan, a Ph.D. qualified physical chemist who works in private industry, has posted the following over at Professor Barry Brook’s Brave New Climate.
TCASE 12: A checklist for renewable energy plans
It’s much too long to repost here, but it’s an excellent primer on key questions for those seeking low carbon solutions in any industrial economy.
There’s also a link to an excellent discussion paper on energy issues in an Australian context by Seligman entitled Australian Sustainable Energy –
by the numbers
Call me old-fashioned, but I think that emission reductions should be brought about by keeping the costs as low as possible – rather than by keeping prices as low as possible. It is the cost of the emission reducing investment that is the limiting factor, rather than the price of fuel or electricity or aluminium. Changes in relative prices bring about changes in consumption, and changes to inputs for production, transforming our economy. Impacts on income from price changes can be addressed by compensating households, without distorting the impact of the carbon price. Resources made available from keeping costs down can be allocated to more emission reductions, reducing poverty, foreign aid, health, education etc.
A comment on carbon prices, interim carbon prices and renewables. Investment decisions in electricity generation infrastructure (including renewables) do not just depend on the current carbon price – they depend on the expected future carbon for the lifetime of the investment. This means that an interim carbon tax that increases at something like 4% real will encourage investment in renewables if it is expected to reach $40/tonne some time in the future. If an ETS is introduced later and the interim carbon price then becomes a price floor, there will be more certainty, and low emission investments will be made earlier.
It would be a great mistake for the greens to drop a carbon price and get behind ‘direct action’. It would provide cover for greenwashing, which is what will happen if the government moves away from a carbon price.
Call me old-fashioned, but I think that emission reductions should be brought about by keeping the costs as low as possible – rather than by keeping prices as low as possible. It is the cost of the emission reducing investment that is the limiting factor, rather than the price of fuel or electricity or aluminium. Changes in relative prices bring about changes in consumption, and changes to inputs for production, transforming our economy. Impacts on income from price changes can be addressed by compensating households, without distorting the impact of the carbon price. Resources made available from keeping costs down can be allocated to more emission reductions, reducing poverty, foreign aid, health, education etc.
A comment on carbon prices, interim carbon prices and renewables. Investment decisions in electricity generation infrastructure (including renewables) do not just depend on the current carbon price – they depend on the expected future carbon for the lifetime of the investment. This means that an interim carbon tax that increases at something like 4% real will encourage investment in renewables if it is expected to reach $40/tonne some time in the future. If an ETS is introduced later and the interim carbon price then becomes a price floor, there will be more certainty, and low emission investments will be made earlier.
It would be a great mistake for the greens to drop a carbon price and get behind ‘direct action’. It would provide cover for greenwashing, which is what will happen if the government moves away from a carbon price.
I wanted to pick up on this point, because I think it’s wrong. Like the good economist-in-training I am, I’ll start with a hugely simplified model.
Let’s say I have $100, and currently spend $20 on power (that causes GHGs) and $80 on everything else. If my power bills increase, such that the same amount of power costs me $30, my consumption split doesn’t change to be $30 (power)/$70 (everything else). It changes to something more like $25/$75. GHGs get reduced, because consumption of power drops.
Let’s then assume I get compensated for the $10 increase in the cost of living by exactly $10. Even then, my consumption split doesn’t move to $30/$80 (reflecting the original combination of power and everything else). It’ll change to something more like $28/$82, and GHGs are still lower than they would have been.
And the incentives for energy-efficiency rise too. An efficiency gain that might have been marginal at a zero carbon price might become a sensible investment once carbon is prices.
This is without a driver for renewables; this is just in terms of GHG-producing power. However, we’re not done yet. We target the compensation to lower-income earners (via a tax credit, or rebates, or some other way). We ignore high income earners (they can modify their consumption patterns which, while lowering their utility, but we don’t care about this as they’re high income earners), and use the rest of the cash we get from our carbon price to (insert good things here). This might be directly building solar-thermal/geothermal/wave/tidal/whatever power plants, or investing in companies that will do this, or whichever forms of action that will help.
So an inadequate starting price on carbon ain’t nothing.
Market mechanisms are invariably flawed. But they do work (for any given definition of “work”). Combined with assorted useful ways of spending the money that a carbon tax would generate, even a below-market rate (so, one that does not fully take into account the externalities of GHG-creating power generation/use) will still have an effect. And this is before we start considering the signalling effects that such an action would send.
I wanted to pick up on this point, because I think it’s wrong. Like the good economist-in-training I am, I’ll start with a hugely simplified model.
Let’s say I have $100, and currently spend $20 on power (that causes GHGs) and $80 on everything else. If my power bills increase, such that the same amount of power costs me $30, my consumption split doesn’t change to be $30 (power)/$70 (everything else). It changes to something more like $25/$75. GHGs get reduced, because consumption of power drops.
Let’s then assume I get compensated for the $10 increase in the cost of living by exactly $10. Even then, my consumption split doesn’t move to $30/$80 (reflecting the original combination of power and everything else). It’ll change to something more like $28/$82, and GHGs are still lower than they would have been.
And the incentives for energy-efficiency rise too. An efficiency gain that might have been marginal at a zero carbon price might become a sensible investment once carbon is prices.
This is without a driver for renewables; this is just in terms of GHG-producing power. However, we’re not done yet. We target the compensation to lower-income earners (via a tax credit, or rebates, or some other way). We ignore high income earners (they can modify their consumption patterns which, while lowering their utility, but we don’t care about this as they’re high income earners), and use the rest of the cash we get from our carbon price to (insert good things here). This might be directly building solar-thermal/geothermal/wave/tidal/whatever power plants, or investing in companies that will do this, or whichever forms of action that will help.
So an inadequate starting price on carbon ain’t nothing.
Market mechanisms are invariably flawed. But they do work (for any given definition of “work”). Combined with assorted useful ways of spending the money that a carbon tax would generate, even a below-market rate (so, one that does not fully take into account the externalities of GHG-creating power generation/use) will still have an effect. And this is before we start considering the signalling effects that such an action would send.
I substantially agree with Peter and Alister above. A carbon price is not a sufficient driver of falling CO2-intensity, but it is a necessary one if one wants a rapid, early and fairly minimally disruptive and costly approach to what is a substantial structural change.
Providing the system applies ubquitously and consistently to industrial and commercial usages, not just in theory but in practice, and reconciliation of CO2 emissions is timely, accurate and fairly cheap, the precise starting cap is not critical. Providing all of the stakeholders knew that the cap would fall year on year and at an increasing rate each year until a stiff end target was reached, the effect is going to be fairly similar to a stiffer cap imposed immediately and held for an extended period. Personally, forced to choose, I’d prefer a fairly nominal initial cap that applied to all commerce and industry to a higher one that implied free permits and loopholes to sectional polluter interests.
I substantially agree with Peter and Alister above. A carbon price is not a sufficient driver of falling CO2-intensity, but it is a necessary one if one wants a rapid, early and fairly minimally disruptive and costly approach to what is a substantial structural change.
Providing the system applies ubquitously and consistently to industrial and commercial usages, not just in theory but in practice, and reconciliation of CO2 emissions is timely, accurate and fairly cheap, the precise starting cap is not critical. Providing all of the stakeholders knew that the cap would fall year on year and at an increasing rate each year until a stiff end target was reached, the effect is going to be fairly similar to a stiffer cap imposed immediately and held for an extended period. Personally, forced to choose, I’d prefer a fairly nominal initial cap that applied to all commerce and industry to a higher one that implied free permits and loopholes to sectional polluter interests.
Fran, I agree with the flat cap, not least because I agree with your rationale. I’d even suggest that political mumblings about import taxes might be a good idea to discourage substitution.
But I think it would be hard to do, especially after market forces recently obtained a change of prime minister for a very reasonable price. The question I suspect Gillard et al are asking themselves is just how far they can push the market towards what the voters want without setting off another leadership spill.
Fran, I agree with the flat cap, not least because I agree with your rationale. I’d even suggest that political mumblings about import taxes might be a good idea to discourage substitution.
But I think it would be hard to do, especially after market forces recently obtained a change of prime minister for a very reasonable price. The question I suspect Gillard et al are asking themselves is just how far they can push the market towards what the voters want without setting off another leadership spill.
There is scope under WTO to impose Border Tariff Adjustments to cover fugitive emissions Moz. The key test is one of non-discrimination — so you need to show that you aren’t doing to imports what you aren’t doing to local product.
I’m not sure I agree with your last point:
Rudd’s slide preceded his ousting. While the imbroglio surrounding the mining thugs was the proximate cause, his abandonment of a price on carbon to the never never, and possibly his lack of conviction in the run up to and during the negotiations over the CPRS to brown it down created a context in which the RSPT looked like a gamble to regaiun credibility as a conviction politician he didn’t actually have. That allowed the mining thug campaign a favourable frame of reference — presenting Rudd’s RSPT as a cynical and dangerous attempt to recover lost ground by acting tough in circumstances that would risk jobs.
If the ALP were to introduce a modest but escalating ETS-based carbon price and promise that all of the proceeds would be given back as tax deductions, rebates, new services for low income people or super, I suspect the ALP’s primary would return, and not merely from The Greens. GBNT would be harder to run.
There is scope under WTO to impose Border Tariff Adjustments to cover fugitive emissions Moz. The key test is one of non-discrimination — so you need to show that you aren’t doing to imports what you aren’t doing to local product.
I’m not sure I agree with your last point:
Rudd’s slide preceded his ousting. While the imbroglio surrounding the mining thugs was the proximate cause, his abandonment of a price on carbon to the never never, and possibly his lack of conviction in the run up to and during the negotiations over the CPRS to brown it down created a context in which the RSPT looked like a gamble to regaiun credibility as a conviction politician he didn’t actually have. That allowed the mining thug campaign a favourable frame of reference — presenting Rudd’s RSPT as a cynical and dangerous attempt to recover lost ground by acting tough in circumstances that would risk jobs.
If the ALP were to introduce a modest but escalating ETS-based carbon price and promise that all of the proceeds would be given back as tax deductions, rebates, new services for low income people or super, I suspect the ALP’s primary would return, and not merely from The Greens. GBNT would be harder to run.
Further, this piece by Crikey’s Bernard Keane may be of interest.
Further, this piece by Crikey’s Bernard Keane may be of interest.
I agree with much of what Peter, Alister, and Fran have written above.
Personally, what I’d like to see an ETS or fixed-price carbon tax introduced with ‘dollar for dollar’ cuts to other taxes and increases in pensions and benefits, in other words, on balance making the introduction of a carbon price end up being net revenue neutral for Government.
So, hypothetically, if the Government raises $x from a carbon tax or ETS, it will also give out $x in tax cuts to households and businesses as well as welfare increases to low income earners.
The question then becomes which taxes to abolish?
We could, for example, increase the tax free threshold as well as pensions and welfare benefits. Households who use less than their fair share of emissions end up better off, while those who use more end up worse off.
We could, alternatively, scrap the GST. Arguably, both a carbon tax and the GST are consumption taxes. Again, carbon intensive products end up cheaper while energy efficient products automatically end up getting a tax break.
Or we could have a set-up where Payroll taxes are scrapped or reduced. Again, job rich low carbon industries – the ones we want – get a tax cut, while industries with few jobs and high emissions gain little.
A benefit of a revenue neutral shift in the tax base (like the ones I’ve suggested above) towards carbon is that you move from taxing things which have economic benefits – such as creating jobs – to taxing pollution. It’s shifting the tax system from something many would consider good (jobs) to something even many skeptics would have to admit is bad (pollution).
The other aspect of not having a carbon price is that right now all of us, as taxpayers, are effectively subsidising polluters by effectively providing them with ‘worst case scenario’ insurance.
The reality is that any adverse shift in the climate will almost certainly see farmers, tourism operators, residents of beachfront mansions, and anyone else adversely impacted all begging the Government for a bailout. Rugged individualism never seems quite as appealing for the wealthy when their mansion falls off a cliff (in some cases, literally). And as it stands, it is taxpayers who take on the risk of these bailouts happening, and if they do happen, will be the ones paying the price; not the people who sold the carbon that created the problem in the first place.
So perversely, low carbon industries and households end up proportionately as much (even though they helped mitigate the risks) as a brown coal power plant (which helped increase the risks). In other words, it’s a cross subsidy.
Well, I’d rather have polluters pay for their own risks and externalities rather than having the rest of us foot the bill!
The inverse of this is also true: as carbon pollution is reduced, so is the risk on taxpayers of future bailouts. And it is reasonable for those who reduce the risks on taxpayers to get rewarded accordingly.
The final benefit of pricing carbon in the manner I suggest above is that net carbon dioxide emissions are predominantly caused by either burning fossil fuels or deforestation. By their nature, deforestation and burning fossil fuels are activities we can only do a finite amount of. And the laws of supply and demand being what they are, as the ammount of coal and oil decreases, demand being level, the price increases. Well, why not prepare our economy ahead of time for more expensive coal and oil by taxing it? Even if you’re a skeptic, you have to admit that we don’t have an infinite supply or coal and oil. And there’s an advantage in moving off them while they’re still plentiful than down the track when they are scarser.
I agree with much of what Peter, Alister, and Fran have written above.
Personally, what I’d like to see an ETS or fixed-price carbon tax introduced with ‘dollar for dollar’ cuts to other taxes and increases in pensions and benefits, in other words, on balance making the introduction of a carbon price end up being net revenue neutral for Government.
So, hypothetically, if the Government raises $x from a carbon tax or ETS, it will also give out $x in tax cuts to households and businesses as well as welfare increases to low income earners.
The question then becomes which taxes to abolish?
We could, for example, increase the tax free threshold as well as pensions and welfare benefits. Households who use less than their fair share of emissions end up better off, while those who use more end up worse off.
We could, alternatively, scrap the GST. Arguably, both a carbon tax and the GST are consumption taxes. Again, carbon intensive products end up cheaper while energy efficient products automatically end up getting a tax break.
Or we could have a set-up where Payroll taxes are scrapped or reduced. Again, job rich low carbon industries – the ones we want – get a tax cut, while industries with few jobs and high emissions gain little.
A benefit of a revenue neutral shift in the tax base (like the ones I’ve suggested above) towards carbon is that you move from taxing things which have economic benefits – such as creating jobs – to taxing pollution. It’s shifting the tax system from something many would consider good (jobs) to something even many skeptics would have to admit is bad (pollution).
The other aspect of not having a carbon price is that right now all of us, as taxpayers, are effectively subsidising polluters by effectively providing them with ‘worst case scenario’ insurance.
The reality is that any adverse shift in the climate will almost certainly see farmers, tourism operators, residents of beachfront mansions, and anyone else adversely impacted all begging the Government for a bailout. Rugged individualism never seems quite as appealing for the wealthy when their mansion falls off a cliff (in some cases, literally). And as it stands, it is taxpayers who take on the risk of these bailouts happening, and if they do happen, will be the ones paying the price; not the people who sold the carbon that created the problem in the first place.
So perversely, low carbon industries and households end up proportionately as much (even though they helped mitigate the risks) as a brown coal power plant (which helped increase the risks). In other words, it’s a cross subsidy.
Well, I’d rather have polluters pay for their own risks and externalities rather than having the rest of us foot the bill!
The inverse of this is also true: as carbon pollution is reduced, so is the risk on taxpayers of future bailouts. And it is reasonable for those who reduce the risks on taxpayers to get rewarded accordingly.
The final benefit of pricing carbon in the manner I suggest above is that net carbon dioxide emissions are predominantly caused by either burning fossil fuels or deforestation. By their nature, deforestation and burning fossil fuels are activities we can only do a finite amount of. And the laws of supply and demand being what they are, as the ammount of coal and oil decreases, demand being level, the price increases. Well, why not prepare our economy ahead of time for more expensive coal and oil by taxing it? Even if you’re a skeptic, you have to admit that we don’t have an infinite supply or coal and oil. And there’s an advantage in moving off them while they’re still plentiful than down the track when they are scarser.
Fran, the problem is that Gillard doesn’t even have the sketchy pretence of being a conviction politician that Rudd had at the end. At best she’s consistently argued for her current position of doing nothing on AGW (which I believe appeals mostly to committed browns who will only support outright denialists anyway). But given her windvane antics over asylum seekers even that is in doubt. So I think she’s just as vulnerable to a forced spill. While I think there’s a limited number of times a spill could be forced the way Rudd’s spill was, there are other options. My confidence in the ability of any political party to resist tugging on the purse strings is very low.
AmishThrasher, one problem with supply and demand acting to increase fossil fuel prices is that that mechanism is not connected to the cost of burning them, only to the cost of digging them up. I suspect you realise that, but I think it’s worth pointing it out in case anyone is still inclined to sit back and wait for the market on that issue.
Fran, the problem is that Gillard doesn’t even have the sketchy pretence of being a conviction politician that Rudd had at the end. At best she’s consistently argued for her current position of doing nothing on AGW (which I believe appeals mostly to committed browns who will only support outright denialists anyway). But given her windvane antics over asylum seekers even that is in doubt. So I think she’s just as vulnerable to a forced spill. While I think there’s a limited number of times a spill could be forced the way Rudd’s spill was, there are other options. My confidence in the ability of any political party to resist tugging on the purse strings is very low.
AmishThrasher, one problem with supply and demand acting to increase fossil fuel prices is that that mechanism is not connected to the cost of burning them, only to the cost of digging them up. I suspect you realise that, but I think it’s worth pointing it out in case anyone is still inclined to sit back and wait for the market on that issue.
Amish
Most of what you say is fair enough but …
1. I’d like some of the benefit to low-income householders given back in kind. This means that instead of spurring consumption of retail goods, feeding people’s substance abuse and gambling problems, doing nothing on child neglect etc, the rebate could appear as quality-low cost energy efficient housing, means-tested access to community food stores, before and after care with food provision at schools and so forth … Such benefits, precisely because they are less liquid than cash make it harder for leakage of benefit back to the relatively well-off to take place and ensure a practical reduction in disadvantage. Ensuring kids live in good housing, get a breakfast at school and a nutritious mean after plus supervised homework and/or sports programs means single parents have more job flexibility and everyone eats better. It can also break down social isolation and inhibit negative contacts between the justice system and youth. Interestingly, as I recall from my days out at Minto, a very high proportion of shoplifting and vandalism takes place between the end of school and sunset and on the way to school. Kids who haven’t had breakfast also tend to perform poorly when at school.
2. As to abolishing the GST I can see the rationale for this but you are going to have to get that revenue from somewhere so you’re implying a much larger carbon cost, given that you are narrowing the base. That can have consequences for the “black” economy. Having more diversified revenue makes sense, and the GST is well established.
Amish
Most of what you say is fair enough but …
1. I’d like some of the benefit to low-income householders given back in kind. This means that instead of spurring consumption of retail goods, feeding people’s substance abuse and gambling problems, doing nothing on child neglect etc, the rebate could appear as quality-low cost energy efficient housing, means-tested access to community food stores, before and after care with food provision at schools and so forth … Such benefits, precisely because they are less liquid than cash make it harder for leakage of benefit back to the relatively well-off to take place and ensure a practical reduction in disadvantage. Ensuring kids live in good housing, get a breakfast at school and a nutritious mean after plus supervised homework and/or sports programs means single parents have more job flexibility and everyone eats better. It can also break down social isolation and inhibit negative contacts between the justice system and youth. Interestingly, as I recall from my days out at Minto, a very high proportion of shoplifting and vandalism takes place between the end of school and sunset and on the way to school. Kids who haven’t had breakfast also tend to perform poorly when at school.
2. As to abolishing the GST I can see the rationale for this but you are going to have to get that revenue from somewhere so you’re implying a much larger carbon cost, given that you are narrowing the base. That can have consequences for the “black” economy. Having more diversified revenue makes sense, and the GST is well established.
I notice there is a poster there called Hazel Davidson saying
.
I presume this is a relative of John’s above or else an astonishing coincidence.
I notice there is a poster there called Hazel Davidson saying
.
I presume this is a relative of John’s above or else an astonishing coincidence.
My background includes contract mining and processing with major contracting companies. Mining and processing contracts often involve arrangements where the contractor (rather than the mine owner) actually owns the mining and processing equipment. My experience suggests that setting up contracts for the supply of cleaner electricity based on competitive tenders is a practical and price/cost effective way to proceed.
Sure it takes time to prepare invitations to tender and set up contracts but it is not unreasonable to say that if the government had started this process when they got into power contracts would have been set up and design/purchasing/construction process would be well under way by now.
In theory, putting a very generous price on carbon may speed up the process slightly because it avoids the need to prepare invitations to tender.
Peter W and others: Do you want to challenge the figures I quoted under “The problem with “introductory” carbon taxes”? If not why would we want to try and impose higher electricity charges on voters whose support for climate action is already soft?
Amish T@7: Have you any feel for what level of carbon taxes would be needed to completely replace the GST or payroll taxes? I have nothing in theory against replacing existing taxes with carbon taxes but you do need to recognize that carbon taxes large enough to drive investment in cleaner electricity will require CPRS style compensation schemes unless we are willing to allow industries like aluminum smelting to be forced offshore.
My bottom line is that we should be aiming to start serious climate action as soon as practical. In the short term, continuing to argue about the merits of putting a price on carbon will just delay serious action.
My background includes contract mining and processing with major contracting companies. Mining and processing contracts often involve arrangements where the contractor (rather than the mine owner) actually owns the mining and processing equipment. My experience suggests that setting up contracts for the supply of cleaner electricity based on competitive tenders is a practical and price/cost effective way to proceed.
Sure it takes time to prepare invitations to tender and set up contracts but it is not unreasonable to say that if the government had started this process when they got into power contracts would have been set up and design/purchasing/construction process would be well under way by now.
In theory, putting a very generous price on carbon may speed up the process slightly because it avoids the need to prepare invitations to tender.
Peter W and others: Do you want to challenge the figures I quoted under “The problem with “introductory” carbon taxes”? If not why would we want to try and impose higher electricity charges on voters whose support for climate action is already soft?
Amish T@7: Have you any feel for what level of carbon taxes would be needed to completely replace the GST or payroll taxes? I have nothing in theory against replacing existing taxes with carbon taxes but you do need to recognize that carbon taxes large enough to drive investment in cleaner electricity will require CPRS style compensation schemes unless we are willing to allow industries like aluminum smelting to be forced offshore.
My bottom line is that we should be aiming to start serious climate action as soon as practical. In the short term, continuing to argue about the merits of putting a price on carbon will just delay serious action.
Fran: There are spies everywhere. I had not realized I was logged in as Hazel when I submitted that comment.
Would anyone like to comment on what they think Labor or the Greens should take to the election if putting a price on carbon is off the table?
Fran: There are spies everywhere. I had not realized I was logged in as Hazel when I submitted that comment.
Would anyone like to comment on what they think Labor or the Greens should take to the election if putting a price on carbon is off the table?
“…does it still make sense to continue urging the Labor party to include putting a price on carbon as part of their election promises or to concentrate on arguing for an effective direct action program?”
“Recent experience with MRET suggests that the price of carbon must be at least $40/tonne CO2 (=¢4.3/kWh for black coal power) for investment in renewables to be justified.”
My understanding is that we now have a fixed price for Renewable Energy Certificates (REC’s) for small renewable energy systems of $40/REC.
My understanding is that a REC = 1 MWh (megawatt-hour)
I believe for black coal fired power, 1 MWh = 1 tonne CO2 (approximately, depending on the coal).
It would appear that if we continue with the MRET and REC’s system, then we indeed already have a defacto price on carbon of $40/tonne CO2.
What is all this carryon about delaying a price on carbon? We already have a defacto price, which is driving consumer decisions.
By all means, why not expand the MRET system to vehicles?
“…does it still make sense to continue urging the Labor party to include putting a price on carbon as part of their election promises or to concentrate on arguing for an effective direct action program?”
“Recent experience with MRET suggests that the price of carbon must be at least $40/tonne CO2 (=¢4.3/kWh for black coal power) for investment in renewables to be justified.”
My understanding is that we now have a fixed price for Renewable Energy Certificates (REC’s) for small renewable energy systems of $40/REC.
My understanding is that a REC = 1 MWh (megawatt-hour)
I believe for black coal fired power, 1 MWh = 1 tonne CO2 (approximately, depending on the coal).
It would appear that if we continue with the MRET and REC’s system, then we indeed already have a defacto price on carbon of $40/tonne CO2.
What is all this carryon about delaying a price on carbon? We already have a defacto price, which is driving consumer decisions.
By all means, why not expand the MRET system to vehicles?
JD asked:
Plainly I don’t think it is off the table, Even the ALP says it is still part of their policy (for 2013). So the argument is about the form, the placement of the cap and the timetable.
I quite like the idea of transitioning by first removing subsidies and tax deductibility of “dirty energy”. That means that whatever else we do, different arms of state policy aren’t pulling in opposite directions. Even the Liberals ought, in theory, to be able to support that. Of course they don’t.
I’ve been putting this to The Greens and to various ALP and Liberal pollies. Making companies pay for dirty energy out of their after tax income would be very neat and require a minimum of new bureaucracy. A lot of businesses would find ways to avoid using dirty energy and might find the idea of an initially modest ETS quite good.
JD asked:
Plainly I don’t think it is off the table, Even the ALP says it is still part of their policy (for 2013). So the argument is about the form, the placement of the cap and the timetable.
I quite like the idea of transitioning by first removing subsidies and tax deductibility of “dirty energy”. That means that whatever else we do, different arms of state policy aren’t pulling in opposite directions. Even the Liberals ought, in theory, to be able to support that. Of course they don’t.
I’ve been putting this to The Greens and to various ALP and Liberal pollies. Making companies pay for dirty energy out of their after tax income would be very neat and require a minimum of new bureaucracy. A lot of businesses would find ways to avoid using dirty energy and might find the idea of an initially modest ETS quite good.
Elise, I see a few problems with that supposition.
The first is that electricity generation makes up only around 38% of national GHG emissions.
Second, because the renewable energy generation requirement is linked to the quantity of electricity purchased, rather than GHG emissions, it isn’t really a de facto price on carbon, but an additional price on electricity generation. An electricity wholesaler who obtains 1 GWh exclusively from gas-fired generators will have the same REC liability as a wholesaler who obtains 1 GWh from coal-fired generators, even though the former’s GHG emissions are around half those of the latter. Third, the REC liability is a small fraction of total electricity produced (the Renewable Energy Requirement for 2010 is 5.89%), so assuming the market REC price for large-scale technology is $40/MWh, the additional price per MWh across the total electricity produced will be (notionally) only 5.89% of that amount, or $2.40 per MWh. So it’s a price of around $2.40/MWh (not /tonne CO2e) levied exclusively on a sector which makes up only 38% of total GHG emissions, and is unrelated to actual GHG emissions. i.e. it’s not really a carbon price, and it’s definitely not $40/tonne CO2e..
Elise, I see a few problems with that supposition.
The first is that electricity generation makes up only around 38% of national GHG emissions.
Second, because the renewable energy generation requirement is linked to the quantity of electricity purchased, rather than GHG emissions, it isn’t really a de facto price on carbon, but an additional price on electricity generation. An electricity wholesaler who obtains 1 GWh exclusively from gas-fired generators will have the same REC liability as a wholesaler who obtains 1 GWh from coal-fired generators, even though the former’s GHG emissions are around half those of the latter. Third, the REC liability is a small fraction of total electricity produced (the Renewable Energy Requirement for 2010 is 5.89%), so assuming the market REC price for large-scale technology is $40/MWh, the additional price per MWh across the total electricity produced will be (notionally) only 5.89% of that amount, or $2.40 per MWh. So it’s a price of around $2.40/MWh (not /tonne CO2e) levied exclusively on a sector which makes up only 38% of total GHG emissions, and is unrelated to actual GHG emissions. i.e. it’s not really a carbon price, and it’s definitely not $40/tonne CO2e..
Does anybody have any reliable data on the electorate’s current buy-in to the climate change issue, period?
Does anybody have any reliable data on the electorate’s current buy-in to the climate change issue, period?
Tim @15: “…the additional price per MWh across the total electricity produced will be (notionally) only 5.89% of that amount, or $2.40 per MWh”
I’m not sure that I follow that reasoning.
The producer of renewable energy is NOT getting $2.40/MWh, they are getting $40/MWh.
It may well be the case, that at the current low levels of renewable power, the cost to the overall system is much less. However, that sort of tangled argument can be made in a lot of cases.
What is the value of the parental leave benefit to an Australian household? Obviously a minority of households are having a baby at any point in time, so the value is diddly squat per household. And the point of that type of analysis is what, exactly?
Tim @15: “…the additional price per MWh across the total electricity produced will be (notionally) only 5.89% of that amount, or $2.40 per MWh”
I’m not sure that I follow that reasoning.
The producer of renewable energy is NOT getting $2.40/MWh, they are getting $40/MWh.
It may well be the case, that at the current low levels of renewable power, the cost to the overall system is much less. However, that sort of tangled argument can be made in a lot of cases.
What is the value of the parental leave benefit to an Australian household? Obviously a minority of households are having a baby at any point in time, so the value is diddly squat per household. And the point of that type of analysis is what, exactly?
I’m going to do an energy policy speech at my school in about 6 weeks so i’ve researched emissions reduction schemes over the holidays and have made a rough sort of plan. Mine goes several levels further than this, eventually. I wouldn’t claim even a skerrick of expertise or knowledge of the subject.
I would like to see them implement some sort of mechanism that encourages power companies to retrofit the power stations with Co-generation technology which would make them up to 3 times more efficient with what they’ve got, as soon as possible.
I’d like to see (again) a subsidies plan that could install solar panels and mini wind power generators to 3 million homes, and i’d like to see $600 million spent on R&D every year, paid for by a carbon tax.
A very very gradual plan for powerdown could be implemented with the support of the Greens, a combination of legislation and funding for local infrastructure, while skillfully sideswiping a few economic agreements, and localisation could help with other community issues.
This would be a good plan to start with, maybe? Am i dreaming and/or naive?
I’m going to do an energy policy speech at my school in about 6 weeks so i’ve researched emissions reduction schemes over the holidays and have made a rough sort of plan. Mine goes several levels further than this, eventually. I wouldn’t claim even a skerrick of expertise or knowledge of the subject.
I would like to see them implement some sort of mechanism that encourages power companies to retrofit the power stations with Co-generation technology which would make them up to 3 times more efficient with what they’ve got, as soon as possible.
I’d like to see (again) a subsidies plan that could install solar panels and mini wind power generators to 3 million homes, and i’d like to see $600 million spent on R&D every year, paid for by a carbon tax.
A very very gradual plan for powerdown could be implemented with the support of the Greens, a combination of legislation and funding for local infrastructure, while skillfully sideswiping a few economic agreements, and localisation could help with other community issues.
This would be a good plan to start with, maybe? Am i dreaming and/or naive?
Elise, you were talking about the small generation REC price as a de facto carbon price. That is completely different from the benefit to households you’re talking about with parental leave. A better comparison would be to talk about the cost per household of paying for that benefit. Then you would be correct in saying that the cost per Australian household (in taxes, increased retail prices or whatever) of parental leave would be relatively trivial, while the benefits to the comparatively few households receiving it would be significant, like the beenfit to renewables generators from the $40 REC price.
Coming back to the REC issue, I’m sure you agree that the benefit (in the form of the REC price) received by small renewables generators under the SRES scheme is a very different thing from a carbon price, which is a cost imposed on the emission of GHG. There is clearly a cost to the RET scheme (since renewables are more expensive than coal) in addition to the benefit received by renewables generators. The cost of the RET scheme is imposed on the electricity industry (and then on consumers) by mandating that electricity wholesalers acquire (in 2010) 5.89% of their MWh from renewables. Spread over their total costs of generation, $40/MWh for 5.89% translates to around $2.40/MHr for each total MWh generated. Bear in mind that the percentage of renewable energy is set by statute, and at present maxes out at around 20% in 2020. It doesn’t make sense to call the $40/MWh REC price for renewables a “carbon price”, because the actual cost of the scheme to carbon emitting electricity generators, and subsequently electricity consumers, is closer to $2.40/MWh. But as I said, it’s not a carbon price because it’s not actually linked to carbon emissions.
The point was to try to get an idea of the actual cost of the scheme on polluting electricity generators, as opposed to the REC price.
You argued that Australia already has a de facto carbon price of $40/tonne CO2e. I investigated that idea, and formed the view that Australia doesn’t have a de facto carbon price, and that at $40/MWh per REC the RET scheme amounts to an additional electricity cost of around $2.40 MWh.
I hope that makes more sense.
Elise, you were talking about the small generation REC price as a de facto carbon price. That is completely different from the benefit to households you’re talking about with parental leave. A better comparison would be to talk about the cost per household of paying for that benefit. Then you would be correct in saying that the cost per Australian household (in taxes, increased retail prices or whatever) of parental leave would be relatively trivial, while the benefits to the comparatively few households receiving it would be significant, like the beenfit to renewables generators from the $40 REC price.
Coming back to the REC issue, I’m sure you agree that the benefit (in the form of the REC price) received by small renewables generators under the SRES scheme is a very different thing from a carbon price, which is a cost imposed on the emission of GHG. There is clearly a cost to the RET scheme (since renewables are more expensive than coal) in addition to the benefit received by renewables generators. The cost of the RET scheme is imposed on the electricity industry (and then on consumers) by mandating that electricity wholesalers acquire (in 2010) 5.89% of their MWh from renewables. Spread over their total costs of generation, $40/MWh for 5.89% translates to around $2.40/MHr for each total MWh generated. Bear in mind that the percentage of renewable energy is set by statute, and at present maxes out at around 20% in 2020. It doesn’t make sense to call the $40/MWh REC price for renewables a “carbon price”, because the actual cost of the scheme to carbon emitting electricity generators, and subsequently electricity consumers, is closer to $2.40/MWh. But as I said, it’s not a carbon price because it’s not actually linked to carbon emissions.
The point was to try to get an idea of the actual cost of the scheme on polluting electricity generators, as opposed to the REC price.
You argued that Australia already has a de facto carbon price of $40/tonne CO2e. I investigated that idea, and formed the view that Australia doesn’t have a de facto carbon price, and that at $40/MWh per REC the RET scheme amounts to an additional electricity cost of around $2.40 MWh.
I hope that makes more sense.
This is deckchairs stuff.The truth is that we face the greatest threat to human existence since or narrow survival of the Lake Toba supervolcano eruption.The climate stability on which our civilization depends, and has depended for ten thousand years or so,is at an end. If the predictions of real scientists are correct, then nothing short of a miracle will prevent at least 4 degrees Celsius of average global warming,possibly as soon as 2050.
This is a threat immeasurably greater than that represented by the Second World War. In that time of crisis Western Governments, and the Soviet Union, simply turned industry over to war-time production,overnight, by diktat. This is what we need now.Vested economic interests that threaten our children’s survival must be ignored and, if necessary,proscribed. We must have a carbon tax, the revenues of which to be hypothecated to renewable energy research and introduction and into increased energy efficiency. The promotion of ecological sustainability must be made society’s highest good, rather than the pursuit of endless economic growth to enrich a tiny,parasitic, elite, as now. We must repair every life-sustaining bio-system, from the forests and soils, to the seas and rivers. We must aim for a ‘steady-state’ economy without growth, with radical redistribution of wealth and with a stable, then falling human population and consumption. Anything less is suicidal, and we should have moved when the science of ecological collapse was, to all intents and purposes, settled ie at least twenty years ago. That we have allowed the very worst people in society, the business elites and their mendacious propaganda goons, to fatally delay action is, frankly, almost beyond belief.
This is deckchairs stuff.The truth is that we face the greatest threat to human existence since or narrow survival of the Lake Toba supervolcano eruption.The climate stability on which our civilization depends, and has depended for ten thousand years or so,is at an end. If the predictions of real scientists are correct, then nothing short of a miracle will prevent at least 4 degrees Celsius of average global warming,possibly as soon as 2050.
This is a threat immeasurably greater than that represented by the Second World War. In that time of crisis Western Governments, and the Soviet Union, simply turned industry over to war-time production,overnight, by diktat. This is what we need now.Vested economic interests that threaten our children’s survival must be ignored and, if necessary,proscribed. We must have a carbon tax, the revenues of which to be hypothecated to renewable energy research and introduction and into increased energy efficiency. The promotion of ecological sustainability must be made society’s highest good, rather than the pursuit of endless economic growth to enrich a tiny,parasitic, elite, as now. We must repair every life-sustaining bio-system, from the forests and soils, to the seas and rivers. We must aim for a ‘steady-state’ economy without growth, with radical redistribution of wealth and with a stable, then falling human population and consumption. Anything less is suicidal, and we should have moved when the science of ecological collapse was, to all intents and purposes, settled ie at least twenty years ago. That we have allowed the very worst people in society, the business elites and their mendacious propaganda goons, to fatally delay action is, frankly, almost beyond belief.
I tried to say this earlier but was moderated – maybe this will explain my point better. As Mulga Mumblebrain says this is deckchair stuff. The science is pointing to a serious threat here and we need to replace our baseload coal generation and fast.
I don’t like it but we should really be talking about nuclear. Not jumping in with both feet but at least talking about it.
I tried to say this earlier but was moderated – maybe this will explain my point better. As Mulga Mumblebrain says this is deckchair stuff. The science is pointing to a serious threat here and we need to replace our baseload coal generation and fast.
I don’t like it but we should really be talking about nuclear. Not jumping in with both feet but at least talking about it.
Elise: MRET is a mechanism that, in effect
by paying a bonus to the producers of renewable energy. For the case you quote this payment is equal to $40/tonne CO2 that would not need to be produced if each renewable mWh was replacing one mWh of black coal fired power. In effect this payment is funded by the producers of dirty electricity. The price the dirty electricity producers pay per tonne CO2 rises slowly as the proportion of renewables increases until it reaches the full $40/tonne when 100% renewables is reached. At 5.89% renewables the average price increase in electricity will =0.0589×40=$2.40/mWh which is equivalent to a carbon price for the dirty power producers of 2.4/(1-.0589)=$2.55/mWh.
By contrast, ETS and carbon taxes put a price on dirty electricity emissions of $40/tonne CO2 on dirty power emissions. So at the start of the replacement process the average price of power has to jump by $40/mWh to cover this price levied on emissions.
What this means is that, with 5.895 renewables, under MRET the average price increase only needs to be $2.40/mWh compared to $40/mWh under ETS or carbon taxes.
In practice, a contract approach should give lower prices than MRET because there doesn’t have to be a price premium to cover the uncertainty re future credit prices.
Elise: MRET is a mechanism that, in effect
by paying a bonus to the producers of renewable energy. For the case you quote this payment is equal to $40/tonne CO2 that would not need to be produced if each renewable mWh was replacing one mWh of black coal fired power. In effect this payment is funded by the producers of dirty electricity. The price the dirty electricity producers pay per tonne CO2 rises slowly as the proportion of renewables increases until it reaches the full $40/tonne when 100% renewables is reached. At 5.89% renewables the average price increase in electricity will =0.0589×40=$2.40/mWh which is equivalent to a carbon price for the dirty power producers of 2.4/(1-.0589)=$2.55/mWh.
By contrast, ETS and carbon taxes put a price on dirty electricity emissions of $40/tonne CO2 on dirty power emissions. So at the start of the replacement process the average price of power has to jump by $40/mWh to cover this price levied on emissions.
What this means is that, with 5.895 renewables, under MRET the average price increase only needs to be $2.40/mWh compared to $40/mWh under ETS or carbon taxes.
In practice, a contract approach should give lower prices than MRET because there doesn’t have to be a price premium to cover the uncertainty re future credit prices.
No one in particular @22: Even if both sides of politics suddenly agreed to nuclear it would be quite some time before nuclear power would start coming on line. Both CCGT commercially available renewables could come on line much sooner than nuclear. Rough estimates for CCGT based transition suggest that complete replacement of coal fired to CCGT would add less than 2 cents/kWh to the price of power and reduce power generation emissions by 60%.
Qier@19: We could do a hell of a lot worse than the plan you are proposing. See the CCGT based link for more on retrofitting existing power stations.
Tim M: The last time I looked power generation was responsible for about 50% of our total emissions. what was your source for the 38%.
No one in particular @22: Even if both sides of politics suddenly agreed to nuclear it would be quite some time before nuclear power would start coming on line. Both CCGT commercially available renewables could come on line much sooner than nuclear. Rough estimates for CCGT based transition suggest that complete replacement of coal fired to CCGT would add less than 2 cents/kWh to the price of power and reduce power generation emissions by 60%.
Qier@19: We could do a hell of a lot worse than the plan you are proposing. See the CCGT based link for more on retrofitting existing power stations.
Tim M: The last time I looked power generation was responsible for about 50% of our total emissions. what was your source for the 38%.
There’s more to the plan John D, i’m still working on it. Them’s the bare bones. Then i’m going to knock the heads of future Sussex St people together with some not-so-lovely statistics from industry and whatever. I’ve had it with waiting. I’ll have a look tomorrow.
There’s more to the plan John D, i’m still working on it. Them’s the bare bones. Then i’m going to knock the heads of future Sussex St people together with some not-so-lovely statistics from industry and whatever. I’ve had it with waiting. I’ll have a look tomorrow.
qier,you have some decent ideas but the ‘very,very,gradual’bit lost me. There is absolutely no time for gradualism.It must be all or nothing, as if our children’s lives depended on it (which they do) or it will be futile.
qier,you have some decent ideas but the ‘very,very,gradual’bit lost me. There is absolutely no time for gradualism.It must be all or nothing, as if our children’s lives depended on it (which they do) or it will be futile.
John D @ 21 : I agree – definitely CCGT in the short term. But of all the technologies talked about only nuclear has a known capacity for providing the baseload power of a modern industrial state over the long term. We should have been having this conversation a decade or more ago, sure. But given the long development time for doing anything we should start talking now, and the reality of politics is that Labor will have to start the conversation if it is to rise above day-to-day political sniping.
John D @ 21 : I agree – definitely CCGT in the short term. But of all the technologies talked about only nuclear has a known capacity for providing the baseload power of a modern industrial state over the long term. We should have been having this conversation a decade or more ago, sure. But given the long development time for doing anything we should start talking now, and the reality of politics is that Labor will have to start the conversation if it is to rise above day-to-day political sniping.
By gradual i mean 10 years. Everything on the plan runs parallel.
By gradual i mean 10 years. Everything on the plan runs parallel.
No-one in particular said:
It’s an interesting thought but one that is worth considering.
Suppose, purely for argument’s sake, that Gillard announced that nuclear power was now something she thought ought to be taken seriously, as part of the energy mix needed to deal with climate change, and pollution more generally, and with this in mind, the bar on nuclear power development would be lifted, if the ALP were re-elected.
How would that change the political advantage between the parties?
The Coalition would have to support it despite the fact that more than a few of their MPs would be very unhappy. Green voters could not vote Coalition because with the wedge removed the Coalition, if it won, would move to act on the matter. Nor could voting Green in the senate prevent both the major parties lifting the ban.
So Greens would still end up supporting the ALP and the Coalition would be wedged by its most NIMBY MPs. ALP members would have to obfuscate and toe the party line. The ALP, rather than being harmed, would gain an advantage as they could quote Howard, Abbott and Joyce with advantage in marginal seats.
No-one in particular said:
It’s an interesting thought but one that is worth considering.
Suppose, purely for argument’s sake, that Gillard announced that nuclear power was now something she thought ought to be taken seriously, as part of the energy mix needed to deal with climate change, and pollution more generally, and with this in mind, the bar on nuclear power development would be lifted, if the ALP were re-elected.
How would that change the political advantage between the parties?
The Coalition would have to support it despite the fact that more than a few of their MPs would be very unhappy. Green voters could not vote Coalition because with the wedge removed the Coalition, if it won, would move to act on the matter. Nor could voting Green in the senate prevent both the major parties lifting the ban.
So Greens would still end up supporting the ALP and the Coalition would be wedged by its most NIMBY MPs. ALP members would have to obfuscate and toe the party line. The ALP, rather than being harmed, would gain an advantage as they could quote Howard, Abbott and Joyce with advantage in marginal seats.
Fran @29, way to go Fran…turn a discussion about the best way to deal with climate change into the politics of wedging.
That is why most of us detest politicians.
Fran @29, way to go Fran…turn a discussion about the best way to deal with climate change into the politics of wedging.
That is why most of us detest politicians.
Speaking of Gillard and Climate Change – this latest one from Getup! is a cracker!
Speaking of Gillard and Climate Change – this latest one from Getup! is a cracker!
Fran @29
At least according to Glenn Milne (yes, I know), the Coalition have devised an interesting position on the NIMBY aspects – no nuclear power station to be built anywhere, unless the local community in a plebiscite approves, with the incentive of substantially lower than normal electricity prices for that community for the life of the project. Plus guaranteed use of some of the electricity for popular environmental causes like taking pressure off water resources via more desalination.
Though that is all pretty theoretical while they maintain a position that they won’t raise anything to do with nuclear energy until the Labor party indicates that there is bipartisan support for starting the discussion. And if it did, one rather suspects that its internal problems would be at least as great as those the Coalition would face with NIMBYism in its ranks.
The main reason why Labor has to start the conversation, if there is to be one, is nothing to with wedges in my view either. It is to do with sovereign risk. With the lead time to get a nuclear power station up, what investor is going to put money on the line without assurances of bipartisan agreement that the project can go ahead?
Elise @30, yes, one of the things about this blog that consistently gives me the irrits too is the way any policy thread devolves so quickly into a tribal political thread, though to give Fran her due in this case she was responding to someone else with a “purely for argument’s sake”.
Fran @29
At least according to Glenn Milne (yes, I know), the Coalition have devised an interesting position on the NIMBY aspects – no nuclear power station to be built anywhere, unless the local community in a plebiscite approves, with the incentive of substantially lower than normal electricity prices for that community for the life of the project. Plus guaranteed use of some of the electricity for popular environmental causes like taking pressure off water resources via more desalination.
Though that is all pretty theoretical while they maintain a position that they won’t raise anything to do with nuclear energy until the Labor party indicates that there is bipartisan support for starting the discussion. And if it did, one rather suspects that its internal problems would be at least as great as those the Coalition would face with NIMBYism in its ranks.
The main reason why Labor has to start the conversation, if there is to be one, is nothing to with wedges in my view either. It is to do with sovereign risk. With the lead time to get a nuclear power station up, what investor is going to put money on the line without assurances of bipartisan agreement that the project can go ahead?
Elise @30, yes, one of the things about this blog that consistently gives me the irrits too is the way any policy thread devolves so quickly into a tribal political thread, though to give Fran her due in this case she was responding to someone else with a “purely for argument’s sake”.
I read that. Given the fears people have, “local community” is going to cover a very large area. You couldn’;t doi it by electorate or council district. It would have to cover people who worked in the area or had to drive past it, people within however far people felt aggrieved. I don’t think Chernobyl is relevant, but those who do would say it affected large swathes of Europe and certainly the Ukraine and Belorussia. And then of course the benefits you describe would have to flow to all those people. Can you imagine who would want a say if Hazelwood were replaced by a nuclear plant in the same place? So this isn’t serious.
What we need is proper evidence-based debate to confront people’s anxieties, and to weigh the relative costs, risks and benefits of the various options. Once we do that, we can have a discussion about how to proceed with development in practice, which configurations would be best and where and so forth.
I actually don’t think the sovereign risk issue arises. It is unlikely that the ALP would oppose progress or seek serious revision if contracts had been drawn up and agreed after an election had been fought and won on the matter. Of course as we have seen, the Coalition won’t try this without ALP support, so the question is moot.
My point on the wedge was this — that the ALP can only be wedged if the Coalition gambles and adopts a policy — and it would be a big gamble for them because the ALP would almost certainly oppose them and profit from it. That’s not the same thing as saying that if the ALP proposed it, they wouldn’t also profit from it, or at worst not be seriously harmed by it.
If the ALP adopted this course, they could have a plausible basis for saying that Australia’s emissions could fall by 15% by 2020 for a cost almost certainly less than the BER at $AUS16bn and not much more than they and Turnbull were prepared to hand the biggest polluters under CPRS. Certainly it would cost a lot less than trying that with solar rebates and RECs and wind farms. And everyone living in the footprint of each retired coal plant would breathe much cleaner air and have much cleaner water. And to the extent that motor vehicles went onto the grid as EVs, we’d get savings in transport emissions too.
In that context, having a price on carbon aimed at emissions reductions of that scale would not be all that painful because there would be an easy way for business to cut its carbon intensity. If for example, as I’ve said before, deductions and subsidies for dirty energy were removed, nuclear could rapidly replace coal and gas, business would again get their deductions, the price impacts would be small and in the interim everyone who needs to at the end where the rubber hits the road gets compensated.
In terms of trade, Australian aluminium gets to be near zero carbon, so that preserves the position of the people in that industry. Australia can boast low CO2 intensity manufacturing and has a positive reason for going out and pushing for stiff targets for others in the advanced world.
Personally, I think the first to adopt this policy will get themselves a very handy political advantage, though initially, this is a lot more risky for the Coalition than it si for the ALP.
I read that. Given the fears people have, “local community” is going to cover a very large area. You couldn’;t doi it by electorate or council district. It would have to cover people who worked in the area or had to drive past it, people within however far people felt aggrieved. I don’t think Chernobyl is relevant, but those who do would say it affected large swathes of Europe and certainly the Ukraine and Belorussia. And then of course the benefits you describe would have to flow to all those people. Can you imagine who would want a say if Hazelwood were replaced by a nuclear plant in the same place? So this isn’t serious.
What we need is proper evidence-based debate to confront people’s anxieties, and to weigh the relative costs, risks and benefits of the various options. Once we do that, we can have a discussion about how to proceed with development in practice, which configurations would be best and where and so forth.
I actually don’t think the sovereign risk issue arises. It is unlikely that the ALP would oppose progress or seek serious revision if contracts had been drawn up and agreed after an election had been fought and won on the matter. Of course as we have seen, the Coalition won’t try this without ALP support, so the question is moot.
My point on the wedge was this — that the ALP can only be wedged if the Coalition gambles and adopts a policy — and it would be a big gamble for them because the ALP would almost certainly oppose them and profit from it. That’s not the same thing as saying that if the ALP proposed it, they wouldn’t also profit from it, or at worst not be seriously harmed by it.
If the ALP adopted this course, they could have a plausible basis for saying that Australia’s emissions could fall by 15% by 2020 for a cost almost certainly less than the BER at $AUS16bn and not much more than they and Turnbull were prepared to hand the biggest polluters under CPRS. Certainly it would cost a lot less than trying that with solar rebates and RECs and wind farms. And everyone living in the footprint of each retired coal plant would breathe much cleaner air and have much cleaner water. And to the extent that motor vehicles went onto the grid as EVs, we’d get savings in transport emissions too.
In that context, having a price on carbon aimed at emissions reductions of that scale would not be all that painful because there would be an easy way for business to cut its carbon intensity. If for example, as I’ve said before, deductions and subsidies for dirty energy were removed, nuclear could rapidly replace coal and gas, business would again get their deductions, the price impacts would be small and in the interim everyone who needs to at the end where the rubber hits the road gets compensated.
In terms of trade, Australian aluminium gets to be near zero carbon, so that preserves the position of the people in that industry. Australia can boast low CO2 intensity manufacturing and has a positive reason for going out and pushing for stiff targets for others in the advanced world.
Personally, I think the first to adopt this policy will get themselves a very handy political advantage, though initially, this is a lot more risky for the Coalition than it si for the ALP.
Wozza @32, long long before we get to the discussions about how to force Australians into voting for nuclear power, we should be discussing the relative merits of this as a supposed permanent answer to climate change.
By relative merits, I mean:
- engineering type assessments of where (NIMBY?) and how (reactor type, supplies etc) and when (realistic timelines and proportion of energy supplied)
- long-term assessments of uranium availability for widespread use (or are we just selfishly proposing this energy solution for ourselves in the medium term?)
- environmental externalities (not just a myopic preoccupation with CO2, but other negative externalities which nukes have in abundance)
- lifecycle costing (will there be asymptotic price rises if all nations try to move to dependence on uranium?)
What gives me the irrits (in addition to the item you pointed out), is the way people try to portray this as just a political issue, and the nuclear lobby attempts to paint it as such for their own selfish purposes.
And the nuclear lobby typically try to intimidate people, by resorting to condescension and technical jargon which most average bears have neither the background nor the time to dissect. That also gives me the irrits big-time.
It is a version of the same ploy used by the worst salesmen in hifi and whitegoods stores – intimidate the customer in to buying something on their sayso, by talking about aspects they don’t understand and making them feel foolish.
Better half has a marvellous time politely and ever so gently pulling such types into little pieces technically, if they try to mess with him this way (they usually don’t really understand what they are talking about, except a few learnt phrases and buzz words). They probably don’t forget it in a hurry, and hopefully think twice about that sales technique for the future.
Absolutely no doubt that we need some major changes in technology, and soonish. BAU will not work.
We need the equivalent of replacing our 50 Watt halogen downlights with 2-3 Watt LED’s (now available in Bunnings, by the way), for all energy technology.
This household doesn’t subscribe to the hairshirt solution, unsurprisingly, being techo’s. The sooner we stop faffing around with political game-playing and concentrate on solutions, the better!
However, Australia doesn’t need to grasp at anything that comes along, with a lobby group with deep pockets and intimidating sales techniques to push it.
Wozza @32, long long before we get to the discussions about how to force Australians into voting for nuclear power, we should be discussing the relative merits of this as a supposed permanent answer to climate change.
By relative merits, I mean:
- engineering type assessments of where (NIMBY?) and how (reactor type, supplies etc) and when (realistic timelines and proportion of energy supplied)
- long-term assessments of uranium availability for widespread use (or are we just selfishly proposing this energy solution for ourselves in the medium term?)
- environmental externalities (not just a myopic preoccupation with CO2, but other negative externalities which nukes have in abundance)
- lifecycle costing (will there be asymptotic price rises if all nations try to move to dependence on uranium?)
What gives me the irrits (in addition to the item you pointed out), is the way people try to portray this as just a political issue, and the nuclear lobby attempts to paint it as such for their own selfish purposes.
And the nuclear lobby typically try to intimidate people, by resorting to condescension and technical jargon which most average bears have neither the background nor the time to dissect. That also gives me the irrits big-time.
It is a version of the same ploy used by the worst salesmen in hifi and whitegoods stores – intimidate the customer in to buying something on their sayso, by talking about aspects they don’t understand and making them feel foolish.
Better half has a marvellous time politely and ever so gently pulling such types into little pieces technically, if they try to mess with him this way (they usually don’t really understand what they are talking about, except a few learnt phrases and buzz words). They probably don’t forget it in a hurry, and hopefully think twice about that sales technique for the future.
Absolutely no doubt that we need some major changes in technology, and soonish. BAU will not work.
We need the equivalent of replacing our 50 Watt halogen downlights with 2-3 Watt LED’s (now available in Bunnings, by the way), for all energy technology.
This household doesn’t subscribe to the hairshirt solution, unsurprisingly, being techo’s. The sooner we stop faffing around with political game-playing and concentrate on solutions, the better!
However, Australia doesn’t need to grasp at anything that comes along, with a lobby group with deep pockets and intimidating sales techniques to push it.
Fran @33: “Certainly it would cost a lot less than trying that with solar rebates and RECs and wind farms.”
RUBBISH, Fran.
Tell the truth, and stop making BS bland statements that are NOT supported by facts.
Fran @33: “Certainly it would cost a lot less than trying that with solar rebates and RECs and wind farms.”
RUBBISH, Fran.
Tell the truth, and stop making BS bland statements that are NOT supported by facts.
Further to major technological advances in energy technology:
Ceramic Fuel Cells Receives Prestigious German Innovation Award
Wake Up Australia!
Further to major technological advances in energy technology:
Ceramic Fuel Cells Receives Prestigious German Innovation Award
Wake Up Australia!
Elise said:
I agree. Let’s have an Australian version of the IPCC right here and have it weigh the options.
It has been done but don’t forget that in the relevant time window, fast spectrum reactors will be availabvle, changing the likely adequacy of supply radically in our favour. If all the world’s stationary energy ran on nuclear and we used reprocessing, we would have at least 700 years worth without digging up even one tonne more or extracting a single tonne from seawater.
And then there is thorium, which is even more abundant than uraium, by a factor of three.
A preoccupation with CO2 is myopic? Goodness me. Do you know how long CO2 added to the atmosphere by humans today will be there? Silicate weathering is very slow Elise.
The environmental externalities of nuclear power are trivial utterly compared with those of fossil fuels and compare well with those of renewables.
Here’s what renewable waste looks like:
Renewables pass their use-by date
Elise said:
I agree. Let’s have an Australian version of the IPCC right here and have it weigh the options.
It has been done but don’t forget that in the relevant time window, fast spectrum reactors will be availabvle, changing the likely adequacy of supply radically in our favour. If all the world’s stationary energy ran on nuclear and we used reprocessing, we would have at least 700 years worth without digging up even one tonne more or extracting a single tonne from seawater.
And then there is thorium, which is even more abundant than uraium, by a factor of three.
A preoccupation with CO2 is myopic? Goodness me. Do you know how long CO2 added to the atmosphere by humans today will be there? Silicate weathering is very slow Elise.
The environmental externalities of nuclear power are trivial utterly compared with those of fossil fuels and compare well with those of renewables.
Here’s what renewable waste looks like:
Renewables pass their use-by date
Fran @37, OK then, let’s start discussing some real numbers, rather than your fanciful “facts”.
We have about 440 nuclear reactors (2006 data), with a capacity totalling about 363 GW (gigawatts), to provide 16% of electricity used worldwide, and 6% of total energy worldwide. The reactors need about 67,000 tonnes of uranium annually.
Uranium is a finite natural resource. Current uranium reserves are about 3.5 million tonnes, or enough to last about 50 years, at present consumption rates.
If all the world’s electricity 15,000 terawatt-hours could be generated by nuclear reactors, then known uranium reserves would only last about 3.5 years.
Could we have a realistic cost escalation curve, if the world takes up nuclear technology with mucho gusto? No??? I thought not.
Perhaps this is why the nuclear lobby go on about supplying 15% or so? Fifteen percent, people, is NOT a viable, long-term, sustainable answer to the scale of change required.
We need a realistic cost comparison for different energy technologies, especially for comparisons of long-life low/zero OPEX (operating expense) technologies. One option is LCOE (Levelised Cost of Energy), as shown in this chart. The equivalent estimate for nuclear power is about $100/MWh.
However, that is not the full story on costs.
In the UK, the government pays subsidies to help prop-up British Energy, which was already bailed out of bankruptcy in 2003 (profitable power generator, what?), with annual subsidies of the order of GBP 184 million for “spent fuel subsidies”. Never the less, the CEGB (Central Electricity Generating Board) uses discredited accounting methods to promote nuclear power over other systems, and regularly reports that it gives the cheapest energy.
According to a CSENE report:
We have yet to see an improved case for the newer technology, other than the fanciful numbers put out by the nuclear lobby. Every recent installation has run massively over budget, and they NEVER incorporate decommissioning costs into their accounting. Wonder why? Let’s leave that hot potato to the government, and bugger bravely off into the sunset, shall we???
In 2005, the costs to the UK government of cleaning up more than 50 years of UK’s nuclear waste was GBP 56 billion. In 2006, they expected the bill to rise by a further GBP 10 billion, and after that… The waste is guarded by armed men around the clock, because of the terrorist threat.
Once again, as it stands this is NOT a viable, long-term, sustainable answer to the scale of change required. It is most probably barking up the wrong tree.
Fran @37, OK then, let’s start discussing some real numbers, rather than your fanciful “facts”.
We have about 440 nuclear reactors (2006 data), with a capacity totalling about 363 GW (gigawatts), to provide 16% of electricity used worldwide, and 6% of total energy worldwide. The reactors need about 67,000 tonnes of uranium annually.
Uranium is a finite natural resource. Current uranium reserves are about 3.5 million tonnes, or enough to last about 50 years, at present consumption rates.
If all the world’s electricity 15,000 terawatt-hours could be generated by nuclear reactors, then known uranium reserves would only last about 3.5 years.
Could we have a realistic cost escalation curve, if the world takes up nuclear technology with mucho gusto? No??? I thought not.
Perhaps this is why the nuclear lobby go on about supplying 15% or so? Fifteen percent, people, is NOT a viable, long-term, sustainable answer to the scale of change required.
We need a realistic cost comparison for different energy technologies, especially for comparisons of long-life low/zero OPEX (operating expense) technologies. One option is LCOE (Levelised Cost of Energy), as shown in this chart. The equivalent estimate for nuclear power is about $100/MWh.
However, that is not the full story on costs.
In the UK, the government pays subsidies to help prop-up British Energy, which was already bailed out of bankruptcy in 2003 (profitable power generator, what?), with annual subsidies of the order of GBP 184 million for “spent fuel subsidies”. Never the less, the CEGB (Central Electricity Generating Board) uses discredited accounting methods to promote nuclear power over other systems, and regularly reports that it gives the cheapest energy.
According to a CSENE report:
We have yet to see an improved case for the newer technology, other than the fanciful numbers put out by the nuclear lobby. Every recent installation has run massively over budget, and they NEVER incorporate decommissioning costs into their accounting. Wonder why? Let’s leave that hot potato to the government, and bugger bravely off into the sunset, shall we???
In 2005, the costs to the UK government of cleaning up more than 50 years of UK’s nuclear waste was GBP 56 billion. In 2006, they expected the bill to rise by a further GBP 10 billion, and after that… The waste is guarded by armed men around the clock, because of the terrorist threat.
Once again, as it stands this is NOT a viable, long-term, sustainable answer to the scale of change required. It is most probably barking up the wrong tree.
Yay! Another nyooks vs renyoowables Thread of Doom.
or alternatively,
Oh F*ck! Another nyooks vs renyoowables Thread of Doom.
Yay! Another nyooks vs renyoowables Thread of Doom.
or alternatively,
Oh F*ck! Another nyooks vs renyoowables Thread of Doom.
It would seem to me that if we’re going to be talking about the economics of nuclear power we should be looking at France rather than the UK.
Also, has anyone told them that they’re going to run out of power in a few decades?
It would seem to me that if we’re going to be talking about the economics of nuclear power we should be looking at France rather than the UK.
Also, has anyone told them that they’re going to run out of power in a few decades?
“Call me old-fashioned, but I think that emission reductions should be brought about by keeping the costs as low as possible”
Peter, it should already be clear from a number of threads that JohnD does not understand that the change in consumer prices from a given mitigation mechanism is not the same thing as the economic cost of that mitigation mechanism.
“Call me old-fashioned, but I think that emission reductions should be brought about by keeping the costs as low as possible”
Peter, it should already be clear from a number of threads that JohnD does not understand that the change in consumer prices from a given mitigation mechanism is not the same thing as the economic cost of that mitigation mechanism.
JohnD, have you thought of proposing that the government funds a pilot plant of the solar-thermal technology, to test it properly? We need more data, using our own conditions, to assess this technology in the context of future needs.
Perhaps they could set somethingup in the Pilbara region, e.g. near Karratha, since the WA Govt are planning a major town expansion for Karratha?
The insolation (sunshine hours) figures for the Pilbara are amongst the best on the planet. It could be one of the best places to site a solar-thermal pilot plant, for both testing reasons and future development reasons?
JohnD, have you thought of proposing that the government funds a pilot plant of the solar-thermal technology, to test it properly? We need more data, using our own conditions, to assess this technology in the context of future needs.
Perhaps they could set somethingup in the Pilbara region, e.g. near Karratha, since the WA Govt are planning a major town expansion for Karratha?
The insolation (sunshine hours) figures for the Pilbara are amongst the best on the planet. It could be one of the best places to site a solar-thermal pilot plant, for both testing reasons and future development reasons?
Tony Abbot has just promised that his climate policy will “not increase the price of electricity” and will be “funded by the budget”. Looks like Labor can cease worrying that Tony will try and outflank them by proposing something credible that would reduce emissions more than what Labor is proposing. Lets hope Labor doesn’t decide to try compete with Tony’s stupidity and stick to doing something serious about climate change.
The last time I looked the Australian per capita consumption of electricity was about 10,000kWh/year. This is the total, it includes the power used to manufacture exports, mine etc. At this per capita consumption a one cent increase in the price per kWh works out at a truly staggering 27 cents/day each!!)
My very rough calculations based on limited data suggest that the price of power would need to rise by about 1.5cents/kWh if we were to replace all coal fired with CCGT as long as we did the whole lot as quickly as possible. I think most Australians would be relieved to find that we could reduce our power related emissions by 60% for less than 50 cents/day each.
Hopefully, Labor will treat the electorate like adults and tell them how much what they are proposing will leave them out of pocket.
Tony Abbot has just promised that his climate policy will “not increase the price of electricity” and will be “funded by the budget”. Looks like Labor can cease worrying that Tony will try and outflank them by proposing something credible that would reduce emissions more than what Labor is proposing. Lets hope Labor doesn’t decide to try compete with Tony’s stupidity and stick to doing something serious about climate change.
The last time I looked the Australian per capita consumption of electricity was about 10,000kWh/year. This is the total, it includes the power used to manufacture exports, mine etc. At this per capita consumption a one cent increase in the price per kWh works out at a truly staggering 27 cents/day each!!)
My very rough calculations based on limited data suggest that the price of power would need to rise by about 1.5cents/kWh if we were to replace all coal fired with CCGT as long as we did the whole lot as quickly as possible. I think most Australians would be relieved to find that we could reduce our power related emissions by 60% for less than 50 cents/day each.
Hopefully, Labor will treat the electorate like adults and tell them how much what they are proposing will leave them out of pocket.
John D,
If all the coal-fired plant was to be turned to gas-fired in the very short term:
1. how much new gas would be needed each year? Where would it come from?
2. how much new pipeline capacity would be needed?
3. what would be the likely impact on the costs of gas?
John D,
If all the coal-fired plant was to be turned to gas-fired in the very short term:
1. how much new gas would be needed each year? Where would it come from?
2. how much new pipeline capacity would be needed?
3. what would be the likely impact on the costs of gas?
Today’s federal Labor may startle easily but I suspect that’s one thing they were never worried about.
Today’s federal Labor may startle easily but I suspect that’s one thing they were never worried about.
Elise@ 38
The McNeil paper you linked to was deceptive. It acknowledged the positive climate change externality associated with nuclear power, but
a)failed to acknowledge positive non-climate externalities at all (e.g. reductions in the rate of acidification of the ocean, reductions in other toxic effluent from from fossil thermal plants
b) greatly exaggerated negative externalities such as catastrophic failure of the plant
AND
c) failed to acknowledge negative externalities associated with renewables — (e.g higher water usage in thermal plants, massively higher embedded energy costs, redundant fossil capacity requirements)
Your reference to CSENE needs clarification. This was not a government report. CSENE stands for the Committee for the Study of the Economics of Nuclear Electricity a self selected set of boffins headed by Sir Kelvin Spencer an ex-Chief Scientist who had worked with the first nuclear plants in the UK. Today, the report is not cited in scholarly study and it is even a challenge to find out who apart from Spencer was on the committee.
Whatever its merit, the report is not salient to anything we would do here. Plainly, we would not be building Magnox reactors or wanting to configure to build nuclear weapons.
You might also ask yourself how in practice the UK would have gone about generating its energy during that 50 years if not through these plants? There can be little doubt that they’d have used more coal. What do you suppose the cost to the planet of that policy would have been today and during the next few hundred years? It would have been far more than the amounts you are quoting, that is for sure.
This has no relevance to us here. Here we have tens of thousands of sq kms of remote low value land on which we could store the piffling amount of hazmat that we could no longer use as fuel. It would require little more than electronic surveillance. In the UK, the problem is one of perceived threat rather than actual threat. It’s about politics rather than public utility.
In any event, these are matters that a properly constituted body could examine and report on. What we need to do first is lift the ban and have a proper discussion.
Personally, on the day someone can show how some combination of renewables can replace Hazelwood or Muja at comparable cost and comparable CO2-intensity as nuclear power, I will begin to take the case for renewables seriously. One can jump up and down all about what might be done with energy-efficient lighting, but until the first fossil thermal power station closes we are not going to cut our emissions by very much at all. Indeed, absent nuclear power, they are certain to rise.
Elise@ 38
The McNeil paper you linked to was deceptive. It acknowledged the positive climate change externality associated with nuclear power, but
a)failed to acknowledge positive non-climate externalities at all (e.g. reductions in the rate of acidification of the ocean, reductions in other toxic effluent from from fossil thermal plants
b) greatly exaggerated negative externalities such as catastrophic failure of the plant
AND
c) failed to acknowledge negative externalities associated with renewables — (e.g higher water usage in thermal plants, massively higher embedded energy costs, redundant fossil capacity requirements)
Your reference to CSENE needs clarification. This was not a government report. CSENE stands for the Committee for the Study of the Economics of Nuclear Electricity a self selected set of boffins headed by Sir Kelvin Spencer an ex-Chief Scientist who had worked with the first nuclear plants in the UK. Today, the report is not cited in scholarly study and it is even a challenge to find out who apart from Spencer was on the committee.
Whatever its merit, the report is not salient to anything we would do here. Plainly, we would not be building Magnox reactors or wanting to configure to build nuclear weapons.
You might also ask yourself how in practice the UK would have gone about generating its energy during that 50 years if not through these plants? There can be little doubt that they’d have used more coal. What do you suppose the cost to the planet of that policy would have been today and during the next few hundred years? It would have been far more than the amounts you are quoting, that is for sure.
This has no relevance to us here. Here we have tens of thousands of sq kms of remote low value land on which we could store the piffling amount of hazmat that we could no longer use as fuel. It would require little more than electronic surveillance. In the UK, the problem is one of perceived threat rather than actual threat. It’s about politics rather than public utility.
In any event, these are matters that a properly constituted body could examine and report on. What we need to do first is lift the ban and have a proper discussion.
Personally, on the day someone can show how some combination of renewables can replace Hazelwood or Muja at comparable cost and comparable CO2-intensity as nuclear power, I will begin to take the case for renewables seriously. One can jump up and down all about what might be done with energy-efficient lighting, but until the first fossil thermal power station closes we are not going to cut our emissions by very much at all. Indeed, absent nuclear power, they are certain to rise.
We need an energy policy and an economic system that makes preserving the life-sustaining biospheres of the planet its prime responsibility.If it can be rationally shown that nuclear is a positive in this equation,then we ought to pursue it. We know, pretty conclusively, that burning hydrocarbons, whether oil, gas or,particularly, coal,is suicidal. If the preservation of the future well-being of mankind was our priority,then coal would stay in the ground, and the vested economic interests in burning it would be ignored. Unfortunately, as our system is inherently corrupt, and the rich owners of society can simply buy politicians, or blackmail them through advertising and media disinformation campaigns, we are unable to pursue humane policy. Instead of spending billions on renewables, it goes instead on the absolute dead-end of carbon sequestration.
Personally I think it unarguable that if the billions spent on nuclear power had gone, instead, to renewables, then we would have far better renewable resources available and that the question of producing such systems with minimal pollution could also have been addressed.I see nuclear as another vested interest, with still intractable waste disposal problems, long lead times, massive greenhouse emissions in development,mining, refining and transport, but, as I say, if it can be demonstrated that the non-greenhouse emission advantages are greater than the disadvantages, then we must follow it while building a proper renewable system based on solar energy in all its forms. And we must seek ever greater energy efficiency and the eventual ideal of ending economic growth, humanely reducing the human population and restoring the planet’s natural biosystems.
We need an energy policy and an economic system that makes preserving the life-sustaining biospheres of the planet its prime responsibility.If it can be rationally shown that nuclear is a positive in this equation,then we ought to pursue it. We know, pretty conclusively, that burning hydrocarbons, whether oil, gas or,particularly, coal,is suicidal. If the preservation of the future well-being of mankind was our priority,then coal would stay in the ground, and the vested economic interests in burning it would be ignored. Unfortunately, as our system is inherently corrupt, and the rich owners of society can simply buy politicians, or blackmail them through advertising and media disinformation campaigns, we are unable to pursue humane policy. Instead of spending billions on renewables, it goes instead on the absolute dead-end of carbon sequestration.
Personally I think it unarguable that if the billions spent on nuclear power had gone, instead, to renewables, then we would have far better renewable resources available and that the question of producing such systems with minimal pollution could also have been addressed.I see nuclear as another vested interest, with still intractable waste disposal problems, long lead times, massive greenhouse emissions in development,mining, refining and transport, but, as I say, if it can be demonstrated that the non-greenhouse emission advantages are greater than the disadvantages, then we must follow it while building a proper renewable system based on solar energy in all its forms. And we must seek ever greater energy efficiency and the eventual ideal of ending economic growth, humanely reducing the human population and restoring the planet’s natural biosystems.
Tim
Two conditions must obtain to reduce emissions
1. It must be technically feasible
2. Decision-makers must think it rational policy, realtive to their other options
Nuclear is indispensible to 1)
Tim
Two conditions must obtain to reduce emissions
1. It must be technically feasible
2. Decision-makers must think it rational policy, realtive to their other options
Nuclear is indispensible to 1)
Fran and others: Unless I have badly misunderstood the data my preferred plan for cleaning up electricty would look something like this:
1. Contracts for the replacement of almost all coal fired power with CCGT signed before the end of 2012.
2. CCGT plants come on line before the end of 2015. Only coal fired remaining would be that use carbonaceous waste or coal mining byproducts that cant be sold and would oxidize to CO2 anyway.
3. CCGT plants run near full capacity until end 2030. Increases in power requirements covered by new clean power plants. (Solar thermal with limited storage to cover daytime peak requirements or whatever.)
4. Replacement of CCGT starts 2031 and is completed by 2040.
Under the above scenario the most logical time for nuclear to be seriously considered is the CCGT replacement stage starting 2031. We don’t really need either party to commit to nuclear for quite a few elections to come.
Fran and others: Unless I have badly misunderstood the data my preferred plan for cleaning up electricty would look something like this:
1. Contracts for the replacement of almost all coal fired power with CCGT signed before the end of 2012.
2. CCGT plants come on line before the end of 2015. Only coal fired remaining would be that use carbonaceous waste or coal mining byproducts that cant be sold and would oxidize to CO2 anyway.
3. CCGT plants run near full capacity until end 2030. Increases in power requirements covered by new clean power plants. (Solar thermal with limited storage to cover daytime peak requirements or whatever.)
4. Replacement of CCGT starts 2031 and is completed by 2040.
Under the above scenario the most logical time for nuclear to be seriously considered is the CCGT replacement stage starting 2031. We don’t really need either party to commit to nuclear for quite a few elections to come.
Sacha @44: Advances in extracting gas from shales and coal seams means that there is plenty of gas to cover the period before CCGT is phased out. Not sure about what would happen to prices or how much extra piping might be required. Keep in mind that CCGT has a very small footprint and that the steam generator in a CCGT plant produces only about 40% of the total power. This means that what is likely to happen is that coal fired generators who are close to gas sources or pipelines will produce significantly more CCGT power than they are currently producing from coal fired – The less well placed coal fired power stations will probably shut down.
Elise @42: I would have thought that we know enough to design solar thermal plants on the basis of current designs and local data on the amount of sunlight reaching the ground at particular sites. This doesn’t mean that R&D cant be justified in terms of improving designs.
The real question is what Julie is willing to commit to in the next term of government. Under Rudd there was too much talk about what was going to happen one or more elections away.
Sacha @44: Advances in extracting gas from shales and coal seams means that there is plenty of gas to cover the period before CCGT is phased out. Not sure about what would happen to prices or how much extra piping might be required. Keep in mind that CCGT has a very small footprint and that the steam generator in a CCGT plant produces only about 40% of the total power. This means that what is likely to happen is that coal fired generators who are close to gas sources or pipelines will produce significantly more CCGT power than they are currently producing from coal fired – The less well placed coal fired power stations will probably shut down.
Elise @42: I would have thought that we know enough to design solar thermal plants on the basis of current designs and local data on the amount of sunlight reaching the ground at particular sites. This doesn’t mean that R&D cant be justified in terms of improving designs.
The real question is what Julie is willing to commit to in the next term of government. Under Rudd there was too much talk about what was going to happen one or more elections away.
Fran, your comment @ 1 languished in the spam bucket along with the duplicate you posted a couple of hours later. The usual advice is to email us (see LH column at the foot of the page).
I think the spaminator looked at your first link and thought you were flogging pharmaceuticals or something!
Fran, your comment @ 1 languished in the spam bucket along with the duplicate you posted a couple of hours later. The usual advice is to email us (see LH column at the foot of the page).
I think the spaminator looked at your first link and thought you were flogging pharmaceuticals or something!
It’s OK Brian …
Over at BraveNewClimate, materials chemist John D Morgan has come up with a primer of questions aimed especially at those favouring renewables, as the focus was BZE’s own emissions reduction proposals, being released today.
It is worth a good look, whatever your view.
TCASE12
It’s OK Brian …
Over at BraveNewClimate, materials chemist John D Morgan has come up with a primer of questions aimed especially at those favouring renewables, as the focus was BZE’s own emissions reduction proposals, being released today.
It is worth a good look, whatever your view.
TCASE12
Oopss … I messed up the link to TCAS12
Oopss … I messed up the link to TCAS12
And one or two of the passionate advocates of renewables should think in particular about the point in Fran’s checklist: “how much new transmission infrastructure is planned?”
This might prevent some of the dafter claims, such as the Pilbara’s insolation hours having a bearing on solving supply and demand issues in Australia’s major electricity markets.
Mind you, I basically agree with Tim @ 39 that the thread has veered into territory that experience shows is almost always supremely uninstructive.
And one or two of the passionate advocates of renewables should think in particular about the point in Fran’s checklist: “how much new transmission infrastructure is planned?”
This might prevent some of the dafter claims, such as the Pilbara’s insolation hours having a bearing on solving supply and demand issues in Australia’s major electricity markets.
Mind you, I basically agree with Tim @ 39 that the thread has veered into territory that experience shows is almost always supremely uninstructive.
Clarification:
Strictly speaking Wozza, it’s John D Morgan’s checklist, but I endorse it.
As to the nuclear power question more broadly, I have no particular interest in whole “take your positions, grab your partners and let’s do the progressive barndance” thing all over again. We have been over these matters many times here. In my opinion, it is time for these issues to get a proper airing in public so that a consscious deicsion can be made by the public rather than politicians who imagine themselves to be trapped in the political equivalent of two-sided Zugzwang*.
In the end, the low carbon solutions that are of decisive use are those that can retire existing fossil capacity because that is where the presenting problem is. It doesn’t matter if a solution will stop us making the problem marginally worse if the failure to abate the current problem will lead to disaster or worse. And if rolling out the marginal solution stops us dealing with the main presenting problem, then it is irrational to pursue it. That is where we are with renewables right now.
*For those who aren’t familiar with Chess, Zugzwang is a position in which there is no direct threat to a player’s position, and no move forced, but in which any legal move causes the player’s position to collapse. I find these the most aesthetic of all chess positions, and those who can execute a sacrificial combination to set up such a position the most exciting of players.
Clarification:
Strictly speaking Wozza, it’s John D Morgan’s checklist, but I endorse it.
As to the nuclear power question more broadly, I have no particular interest in whole “take your positions, grab your partners and let’s do the progressive barndance” thing all over again. We have been over these matters many times here. In my opinion, it is time for these issues to get a proper airing in public so that a consscious deicsion can be made by the public rather than politicians who imagine themselves to be trapped in the political equivalent of two-sided Zugzwang*.
In the end, the low carbon solutions that are of decisive use are those that can retire existing fossil capacity because that is where the presenting problem is. It doesn’t matter if a solution will stop us making the problem marginally worse if the failure to abate the current problem will lead to disaster or worse. And if rolling out the marginal solution stops us dealing with the main presenting problem, then it is irrational to pursue it. That is where we are with renewables right now.
*For those who aren’t familiar with Chess, Zugzwang is a position in which there is no direct threat to a player’s position, and no move forced, but in which any legal move causes the player’s position to collapse. I find these the most aesthetic of all chess positions, and those who can execute a sacrificial combination to set up such a position the most exciting of players.
Not quite on topic (we need a climate change open thread) late Night Live last Thursday replayed an interview with James Hansen originally broadcast in March.
It was a longer interview, occupying the whole program, so went well beyond nukes and carbon taxes.
On the local front the Brisbane City Council has a Green Heart Program “aimed at making Brisbane a carbon-neutral city by 2026.”
For those who don’t know the BCC covers the whole metropolitan area with a budget bigger, I understand, than Tasmania’s.
Funnily enough the were claiming the other day that they are carbon neutral right now, I gather through the purchase of offsets. I gather that by 2026 the aim is to be carbon neutral without offsets.
In any case they are hoping that their leadership inspires us all.
Not quite on topic (we need a climate change open thread) late Night Live last Thursday replayed an interview with James Hansen originally broadcast in March.
It was a longer interview, occupying the whole program, so went well beyond nukes and carbon taxes.
On the local front the Brisbane City Council has a Green Heart Program “aimed at making Brisbane a carbon-neutral city by 2026.”
For those who don’t know the BCC covers the whole metropolitan area with a budget bigger, I understand, than Tasmania’s.
Funnily enough the were claiming the other day that they are carbon neutral right now, I gather through the purchase of offsets. I gather that by 2026 the aim is to be carbon neutral without offsets.
In any case they are hoping that their leadership inspires us all.
Fran @48 – is that comment meant for me or ‘Mulga Mumblebrain’? I haven’t made any comments regarding the feasibility or otherwise of nukes or renewables on this thread.
Fran @48 – is that comment meant for me or ‘Mulga Mumblebrain’? I haven’t made any comments regarding the feasibility or otherwise of nukes or renewables on this thread.
Well you rather did Tim. The implication of your remark, as I saw it, was that nuclear power was not relevant to a discussion on what climate policy action should labor take to the election?
I’d say that nuclear power was very relevant — an essential tool for realising cuts in emissions, rather than some annoying distraction to an argument about something else.
Whatever one makes of John Davidson’s point about contracts for supply of clean energy unless there is some way of supplying that energy at about the emissions rate we should ultimately be aiming for (cuts of 90% on 1990 by 2050) we can’t have an adequate policy. You can neither coerce nor bribe people to do things that can’t be done. I merely sought to make that point.
Well you rather did Tim. The implication of your remark, as I saw it, was that nuclear power was not relevant to a discussion on what climate policy action should labor take to the election?
I’d say that nuclear power was very relevant — an essential tool for realising cuts in emissions, rather than some annoying distraction to an argument about something else.
Whatever one makes of John Davidson’s point about contracts for supply of clean energy unless there is some way of supplying that energy at about the emissions rate we should ultimately be aiming for (cuts of 90% on 1990 by 2050) we can’t have an adequate policy. You can neither coerce nor bribe people to do things that can’t be done. I merely sought to make that point.
Here is a link to Professor Barry Brook’s series:Thing Critically abour Sustainable Energy (TCASE)
There are 12 parts currently. These include:
TCASE 3: The energy demand equation to 2050
TCASE 4: Energy system build rates and material inputs
TCASE 5: Ocean power I – Pelamis
TCASE 6: Cooling water and thermal power plants
TCASE 7: Scaling up Andasol 1 to baseload (an essential for our advocates of solar thermal
TCASE 9: Ocean power II – CETO
TCASE 10: Not all capacity factors are made equal (Part 1)
TCASE 11: Safety, cost and regulation in nuclear electricity generation
Well worth a look.
Here is a link to Professor Barry Brook’s series:Thing Critically abour Sustainable Energy (TCASE)
There are 12 parts currently. These include:
TCASE 3: The energy demand equation to 2050
TCASE 4: Energy system build rates and material inputs
TCASE 5: Ocean power I – Pelamis
TCASE 6: Cooling water and thermal power plants
TCASE 7: Scaling up Andasol 1 to baseload (an essential for our advocates of solar thermal
TCASE 9: Ocean power II – CETO
TCASE 10: Not all capacity factors are made equal (Part 1)
TCASE 11: Safety, cost and regulation in nuclear electricity generation
Well worth a look.
oops … Thinking critically …(TCASE) …
oops … Thinking critically …(TCASE) …
Fran @58, if that’s the case, you completely misinterpreted the remark. I was merely making what I thought was the rather uncontroversial observation that another round of bloggy headbutting between nukes and renewables advocates, respectively, would be as unedifying as the last few have been, and would inevitably lead to a Thread of Doom. Both sides will repeat the same arguments they have made numerous times before, neither side will concede anything, and the energy generated will be entirely in the infrared spectrum.
I was making absolutely no comment on the relevance, or otherwise, of either nukes or renewables to the climate change debate. I would have thought it a matter of common sense that both are relevant.
Fran @58, if that’s the case, you completely misinterpreted the remark. I was merely making what I thought was the rather uncontroversial observation that another round of bloggy headbutting between nukes and renewables advocates, respectively, would be as unedifying as the last few have been, and would inevitably lead to a Thread of Doom. Both sides will repeat the same arguments they have made numerous times before, neither side will concede anything, and the energy generated will be entirely in the infrared spectrum.
I was making absolutely no comment on the relevance, or otherwise, of either nukes or renewables to the climate change debate. I would have thought it a matter of common sense that both are relevant.
In that case Tim, now that the matter should be clear, please consider the observation withdrawn, at least in relation to you. I apologise at misreading your intent.
In that case Tim, now that the matter should be clear, please consider the observation withdrawn, at least in relation to you. I apologise at misreading your intent.
Fran: That is a very good checklist at. Item 1.3 goes to the crux of where a lot of what i say is coming from:
This is emphasis on bang for buck is particularly important when voters want climate action without too much pain.
1.3 goes on to say:
I am in no position to comment about the nuclear price claims but both the figures for natural gas and renewables are a bit higher than expected and, if anything, would would strengthen the argument in favour of the CCGT transition. Would need to know what cost of capital and CCGT life is assumed. The renewable cost seems high unless the estimate includes energy storage. MRET has been getting investment in renewables at a much lower credit price than $64/tonne CO2. The short term problem for nuclear is the timing check.
From an emissions point of view the important thing is the extent to which emissions are reduced (compared with no change) over the next 40 years. (Assuming we have reached pure green at the end of the 40 yeas.). It doesn’t really matter how the emissions are reduced or what the rate of emissions are in 10 yrs time – As long as it is enough to leave the 40 yr total target acheivable.
If we leave all the action till the last moment there will be zero 40 yr reduction. If we did it all right now the reduction would be 100%. The figures I bandy around are based on a 40 yr total reduction of 66.5% of power related emissions. This is what you would get if you steadily ramped these emissions starting at the end of yr 4 and finishing at the end of yr 20.
I think there has enough space given to nuclear on this thread. Could we get back to non-nuclear commitments please?
Fran: That is a very good checklist at. Item 1.3 goes to the crux of where a lot of what i say is coming from:
This is emphasis on bang for buck is particularly important when voters want climate action without too much pain.
1.3 goes on to say:
I am in no position to comment about the nuclear price claims but both the figures for natural gas and renewables are a bit higher than expected and, if anything, would would strengthen the argument in favour of the CCGT transition. Would need to know what cost of capital and CCGT life is assumed. The renewable cost seems high unless the estimate includes energy storage. MRET has been getting investment in renewables at a much lower credit price than $64/tonne CO2. The short term problem for nuclear is the timing check.
From an emissions point of view the important thing is the extent to which emissions are reduced (compared with no change) over the next 40 years. (Assuming we have reached pure green at the end of the 40 yeas.). It doesn’t really matter how the emissions are reduced or what the rate of emissions are in 10 yrs time – As long as it is enough to leave the 40 yr total target acheivable.
If we leave all the action till the last moment there will be zero 40 yr reduction. If we did it all right now the reduction would be 100%. The figures I bandy around are based on a 40 yr total reduction of 66.5% of power related emissions. This is what you would get if you steadily ramped these emissions starting at the end of yr 4 and finishing at the end of yr 20.
I think there has enough space given to nuclear on this thread. Could we get back to non-nuclear commitments please?
Thanks Fran.
Thanks Fran.
When you posted this originally John, I tried to imagine what I would do if I was told I wanted to roll out clean energy but the system constraints were
a)no carbon price or
b)no nuclear power,
c)must keep giving subsidies (direct and indirect) to fossil fuels
Pursuinbg your regulatory fiat route, I would simply set a target that was realisable with the best value for money CO2 abatement there was — say 15% by 2020.
I’d require all businesses having a turnover of more than 1 million dollars per annum or assets worth more than five million dollars to
a) develop by April 2011, a comprehensive plan that
i) would reduce their carbon intensity by not less than 1% in any fiscal year, not less than 5% over any three year period, and not less than 15% by 2020 and 30% by 2030.
ii) This plan would be registered by the government and would have to be audited for feasibility by a competent organisation not connected with the development of the plan
b) produce a progress report with recommendations at least every six months. Where it was likely that the business would fail to meet its target a bond representing the value of the shortfall (at $40 per tonne) would have to be lodged; if the business failed, the amount of the failure would become a fine, with the bond forfeit in satisfaction to the extent of the shortfall and acquittal of any remainder enforced; a second and subsequent failures would involve fines of $80 per tonne and the requirement that company directors personally perform court-ordered community services
c) Businesses that did not believe they could operate under such mandates could of course, elect to close or sell up their assets and portions of their business to the extent necessary to get under the relevant purview.
That might get their attention. I’d leave it up to each business to decide how they got that done. They don’t want a price on carbon? They prefer regulation? As they wish.
When you posted this originally John, I tried to imagine what I would do if I was told I wanted to roll out clean energy but the system constraints were
a)no carbon price or
b)no nuclear power,
c)must keep giving subsidies (direct and indirect) to fossil fuels
Pursuinbg your regulatory fiat route, I would simply set a target that was realisable with the best value for money CO2 abatement there was — say 15% by 2020.
I’d require all businesses having a turnover of more than 1 million dollars per annum or assets worth more than five million dollars to
a) develop by April 2011, a comprehensive plan that
i) would reduce their carbon intensity by not less than 1% in any fiscal year, not less than 5% over any three year period, and not less than 15% by 2020 and 30% by 2030.
ii) This plan would be registered by the government and would have to be audited for feasibility by a competent organisation not connected with the development of the plan
b) produce a progress report with recommendations at least every six months. Where it was likely that the business would fail to meet its target a bond representing the value of the shortfall (at $40 per tonne) would have to be lodged; if the business failed, the amount of the failure would become a fine, with the bond forfeit in satisfaction to the extent of the shortfall and acquittal of any remainder enforced; a second and subsequent failures would involve fines of $80 per tonne and the requirement that company directors personally perform court-ordered community services
c) Businesses that did not believe they could operate under such mandates could of course, elect to close or sell up their assets and portions of their business to the extent necessary to get under the relevant purview.
That might get their attention. I’d leave it up to each business to decide how they got that done. They don’t want a price on carbon? They prefer regulation? As they wish.
Interesting, Fran. Something quite close to what you are suggesting could notionally be implemented by some relatively simple amendments to the existing National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act and Energy Efficiency Opportunities Act. It would need to be limited to the largest 500 or so energy using/GHG emitting businesses in the country (who are subject to the NGER and EEO Acts) but this could be done with relatively little loss of coverage, as they account for the majority of national emissions.
Interesting, Fran. Something quite close to what you are suggesting could notionally be implemented by some relatively simple amendments to the existing National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act and Energy Efficiency Opportunities Act. It would need to be limited to the largest 500 or so energy using/GHG emitting businesses in the country (who are subject to the NGER and EEO Acts) but this could be done with relatively little loss of coverage, as they account for the majority of national emissions.
Tim observed:
I’d prefer the coverage to be much wider though, not because I think there’s currently a lot of emission abatement to be had reaching wider, but because a focus on the top companies might encourage some to try an end run around the requirements by outsourcing their GHG-intensive functions to smaller outfits. Fugitive emissions would then take on a whole new meaning.
In some cases, you might have to “deem” the value of trade to avoid transfer pricing scams.
Tim observed:
I’d prefer the coverage to be much wider though, not because I think there’s currently a lot of emission abatement to be had reaching wider, but because a focus on the top companies might encourage some to try an end run around the requirements by outsourcing their GHG-intensive functions to smaller outfits. Fugitive emissions would then take on a whole new meaning.
In some cases, you might have to “deem” the value of trade to avoid transfer pricing scams.
For anyone who would like a decent summary of nuclear in Australia, they could try reading the Quarterly Essay, Issue 27, 2007.
“Reaction Time – Climate Change and the Nuclear Option” by Emeritus Prof. Ian Lowe
He has a doctorate in physics, and worked on a UK project funded by the UK Atomic Energy Authority, amongst other things.
He has quite a bit to say about the misrepresentations in the Switkowski report (Howard government pro-nuclear study, with very opportunistic terms of reference), and other nuclear lobby claims.
I don’t want to waste any more time on nuclear, but at least do yourself a favour and read Lowe’s essay, before taking statements by pro-nuclear advocates at face value.
For anyone who would like a decent summary of nuclear in Australia, they could try reading the Quarterly Essay, Issue 27, 2007.
“Reaction Time – Climate Change and the Nuclear Option” by Emeritus Prof. Ian Lowe
He has a doctorate in physics, and worked on a UK project funded by the UK Atomic Energy Authority, amongst other things.
He has quite a bit to say about the misrepresentations in the Switkowski report (Howard government pro-nuclear study, with very opportunistic terms of reference), and other nuclear lobby claims.
I don’t want to waste any more time on nuclear, but at least do yourself a favour and read Lowe’s essay, before taking statements by pro-nuclear advocates at face value.
Or even better, Elise, get the book co-authored by Lowe and Brook — Why vs Why where you can get two sides, literally side by side.
Or even better, Elise, get the book co-authored by Lowe and Brook — Why vs Why where you can get two sides, literally side by side.
True Fran, that is a genuine consideration. However, the provisions of the NGER and EEO Acts are actually designed to head off that kind of evasion, which is one reason why I think the sort of policy you propose could be achieved by relatively simple legislative change. There are already regulatory arrangements in place which capture these companies – it would essentially be a case of extending the current obligations to record and report GHG emissions and energy use and develop efficiency plans by adding the obligation to actually carry out those plans and achieve emissions reductions.
True Fran, that is a genuine consideration. However, the provisions of the NGER and EEO Acts are actually designed to head off that kind of evasion, which is one reason why I think the sort of policy you propose could be achieved by relatively simple legislative change. There are already regulatory arrangements in place which capture these companies – it would essentially be a case of extending the current obligations to record and report GHG emissions and energy use and develop efficiency plans by adding the obligation to actually carry out those plans and achieve emissions reductions.
Ian Lowe certainly deserves his emeritus status, he’s very well respected, but unfortunately that QE was rubbish, full of utter straw men. But hey, make up your own mind, buy the Ian Lowe/Barry Brook double header.
Ian Lowe certainly deserves his emeritus status, he’s very well respected, but unfortunately that QE was rubbish, full of utter straw men. But hey, make up your own mind, buy the Ian Lowe/Barry Brook double header.
How do they manage that in practice Tim? How do they specify related companies, for example?
How do they manage that in practice Tim? How do they specify related companies, for example?
Fran, both Acts have a fairly convoluted set of provisions, based around the concept of a “controlling corporation” and its relationships with subsidiaries, joint ventures and partnerships, all of which are defined in particular ways in the legislation.
It’s convoluted not just because of the need to discourage corporate structures intended to evade the obligations, but also to work out which parties are liable for which portions of energy use and emissions in the case of arrangements like joint ventures where there are multiple participants engaging in various energy- and emissions-intensive activities. That’s about the best I can do without it turning into a dull, opaque legal seminar.
I’m not saying it’s perfect, or even adequate, BTW, it just struck me that the concept you proposed could be built from the existing legislation relatively easily.
There’s a bunch of info about the EEO Act here if you’re interested. NGER and EEO were two of the better aspects of Howard era climate policy. Far short of sufficient, of course, but reasonable building blocks for a more comprehensive policy which has not yet emerged, sadly.
Fran, both Acts have a fairly convoluted set of provisions, based around the concept of a “controlling corporation” and its relationships with subsidiaries, joint ventures and partnerships, all of which are defined in particular ways in the legislation.
It’s convoluted not just because of the need to discourage corporate structures intended to evade the obligations, but also to work out which parties are liable for which portions of energy use and emissions in the case of arrangements like joint ventures where there are multiple participants engaging in various energy- and emissions-intensive activities. That’s about the best I can do without it turning into a dull, opaque legal seminar.
I’m not saying it’s perfect, or even adequate, BTW, it just struck me that the concept you proposed could be built from the existing legislation relatively easily.
There’s a bunch of info about the EEO Act here if you’re interested. NGER and EEO were two of the better aspects of Howard era climate policy. Far short of sufficient, of course, but reasonable building blocks for a more comprehensive policy which has not yet emerged, sadly.
Most of you hee appear to not want to recognise what both Kyoto and Copenhagen really mean. There can never be a political, economic and scientific consensus on effective action to limit or reverse human influences on climate change. The BRIC nations do not want to limit their growth and their populations desire the living standards of western nations (and rightly so) which implies energy intensive lifestyles. Coal remains the cheapest way of providing the required energy.
The Voters in Western Democracies are becoming more and more aware of the costs demanded of them. At the same time they arebecoming more educated to the spin of the non-carbon energy sector and the inefficincies of those technologies. While polling may suggest that people want to save the world, they don’t want to pay for it. The uncertainites of the science of climate science versus the certainties of the pronouncements by the hypocritical Acolytes of climate hysteria has had a negative impact on voter sentiment towards taking any meaningful action.
The only logical conclusion that can be drawn from this is that the best approach is working to make national and gloabl economies as robust and strong as possible so that adaption to climate change in whatever form that requires can be paid for. Instead we are wasting time, effort and money on sub-optimal solutions. Ridiculous.
Most of you hee appear to not want to recognise what both Kyoto and Copenhagen really mean. There can never be a political, economic and scientific consensus on effective action to limit or reverse human influences on climate change. The BRIC nations do not want to limit their growth and their populations desire the living standards of western nations (and rightly so) which implies energy intensive lifestyles. Coal remains the cheapest way of providing the required energy.
The Voters in Western Democracies are becoming more and more aware of the costs demanded of them. At the same time they arebecoming more educated to the spin of the non-carbon energy sector and the inefficincies of those technologies. While polling may suggest that people want to save the world, they don’t want to pay for it. The uncertainites of the science of climate science versus the certainties of the pronouncements by the hypocritical Acolytes of climate hysteria has had a negative impact on voter sentiment towards taking any meaningful action.
The only logical conclusion that can be drawn from this is that the best approach is working to make national and gloabl economies as robust and strong as possible so that adaption to climate change in whatever form that requires can be paid for. Instead we are wasting time, effort and money on sub-optimal solutions. Ridiculous.
You’re over-egging it a bit Razor. Some of us, at least, do realise that, at this juncture, some sort of international agreement or coordinated action to reduce emissions is very unlikely if not impossible. That doesn’t make the rest of your rant any more sensible, of course. But then, if sense were a requirement for blog-commenting, all threads would be extremely short.
You’re over-egging it a bit Razor. Some of us, at least, do realise that, at this juncture, some sort of international agreement or coordinated action to reduce emissions is very unlikely if not impossible. That doesn’t make the rest of your rant any more sensible, of course. But then, if sense were a requirement for blog-commenting, all threads would be extremely short.
Tim @ 75 – I was told that I was wrong when I here before Copenhagen that China and India didn’t want to do a deal and that no effective deal would be done. Kyoto is a failure. Spain’s daliance with renewablkes is an economic basket case.
You are entitled to your opinion about whether or not I am over egging it and I would be interested to debate you as to why you think I am, but so far I think my batting average isn’t too bad.
Fran @65: Imagine you found yourself unexpectedly leading a government which will face an election within a few months. Imagine too that this government while showing lots of emission control promise in 2007, but has really achieved about the same as John Howard would have achieved had he won the election. Sure, there was this great big study into a grand emissions control plan and sure you can blame the opposition for blocking the the precious plan.
But the electorate is sick of great big studies and wants real action, not another study and not another scheme that looks like and excuse for further procrastination or wedging the opposition. To make matters worse they want real action without much economic pain and are suspicious of complex plans that make it hard to see how much will be achieved and/or how much effect it will have on their lives and budgets.
So what would you do in this situation?
You could try and go nuclear but something that will take years to get past the political, environmental and NIMBY hurdles might be seen as procrastination.
You could try what you are suggesting @65 but many business’s could quite rightly argue that goals have at least got to take account of what can be done in their industry. Plus it won’t be clear by the election what this plan will achieve or what effect it will have on each of us.
So your best bet might be to go for a very simple plan that concentrates on major sources of emission and for which the technology required to make a significant difference are available right now. It is also important that the plan involves tangible action before the end of the next term of government. (Tangible action means either actually reducing emissions or doing something like signing contracts that will result in emission reduction getting back on track in a few years.
Want to have another go?
PS1: Not sure what my “regulatory fiat route” means but I suspect that it is missing what I am really on about.
PS2: The government’s current target is a 25% reduction in emissions below current levels – I think you need to raise your target rather than cutting it back.
Fran @65: Imagine you found yourself unexpectedly leading a government which will face an election within a few months. Imagine too that this government while showing lots of emission control promise in 2007, but has really achieved about the same as John Howard would have achieved had he won the election. Sure, there was this great big study into a grand emissions control plan and sure you can blame the opposition for blocking the the precious plan.
But the electorate is sick of great big studies and wants real action, not another study and not another scheme that looks like and excuse for further procrastination or wedging the opposition. To make matters worse they want real action without much economic pain and are suspicious of complex plans that make it hard to see how much will be achieved and/or how much effect it will have on their lives and budgets.
So what would you do in this situation?
You could try and go nuclear but something that will take years to get past the political, environmental and NIMBY hurdles might be seen as procrastination.
You could try what you are suggesting @65 but many business’s could quite rightly argue that goals have at least got to take account of what can be done in their industry. Plus it won’t be clear by the election what this plan will achieve or what effect it will have on each of us.
So your best bet might be to go for a very simple plan that concentrates on major sources of emission and for which the technology required to make a significant difference are available right now. It is also important that the plan involves tangible action before the end of the next term of government. (Tangible action means either actually reducing emissions or doing something like signing contracts that will result in emission reduction getting back on track in a few years.
Want to have another go?
PS1: Not sure what my “regulatory fiat route” means but I suspect that it is missing what I am really on about.
PS2: The government’s current target is a 25% reduction in emissions below current levels – I think you need to raise your target rather than cutting it back.
John D
1. As you’ve asked us to put nuclear to one side, I am going to stick with that.
2. My target was 15% below 1990, not 2010, so I would be going harder.
I would be doing that — the plans would be theirs. Some might not have much scope to reduce — a chain of real estate offices for example wouldn’t be that CO2-intensive, you’d think, so maybe for them there’d be industry benchmarking for best practice.
My plan would achieve 15% — largely through early retirement of coal, and possibly through properly audited carbon offsets. This would be driven through the bu=ig generators being subject to the same plans.
John D
1. As you’ve asked us to put nuclear to one side, I am going to stick with that.
2. My target was 15% below 1990, not 2010, so I would be going harder.
I would be doing that — the plans would be theirs. Some might not have much scope to reduce — a chain of real estate offices for example wouldn’t be that CO2-intensive, you’d think, so maybe for them there’d be industry benchmarking for best practice.
My plan would achieve 15% — largely through early retirement of coal, and possibly through properly audited carbon offsets. This would be driven through the bu=ig generators being subject to the same plans.
I should add John, that I also believe that regardless of which party wins the elections between now and 2020, it seems likely that there will be steady growth in the proportion of vehicle miles powered from electricity.
That, in concert with gas substitution on the grid should underpin the 15% below 1990 target.
The main obstacle of course is that growth in total demand for electricity between now and then will subvert a more ambitious target.
I should add John, that I also believe that regardless of which party wins the elections between now and 2020, it seems likely that there will be steady growth in the proportion of vehicle miles powered from electricity.
That, in concert with gas substitution on the grid should underpin the 15% below 1990 target.
The main obstacle of course is that growth in total demand for electricity between now and then will subvert a more ambitious target.
I’m also not clear John why the proposal I offered in the early parts of this topic — removing subsidies and tax deductibility for dirty energy — ought to be excluded. Although it obviously puts a kind of indirect price on CO2 emissions, since it is a harsher tax treatment than obtained before — it isn’t really a tax or even a trading scheme.
It’s very simple. You want to emit CO2/GHGs? — that’s up to you, but you get to pay for it out of your own pocket.
I think Gillard could present that as minimally consistent with ruling out an ETS or carbon tax while driving energy efficiency and low carbon sources.
I’m also not clear John why the proposal I offered in the early parts of this topic — removing subsidies and tax deductibility for dirty energy — ought to be excluded. Although it obviously puts a kind of indirect price on CO2 emissions, since it is a harsher tax treatment than obtained before — it isn’t really a tax or even a trading scheme.
It’s very simple. You want to emit CO2/GHGs? — that’s up to you, but you get to pay for it out of your own pocket.
I think Gillard could present that as minimally consistent with ruling out an ETS or carbon tax while driving energy efficiency and low carbon sources.
The only way to come close to that sort of reductions in that sort of timeframe is via a package of sequestration, energy efficiency, land management and offshore procurement. New/different power generation could only be a moderate part of the mix.
People are quite rightly sceptical of accounting for offsets, particularly offshore.
Razor was basically right, even if for the wrong reasons. We’re basically f*cked when it comes to .
The only way to come close to that sort of reductions in that sort of timeframe is via a package of sequestration, energy efficiency, land management and offshore procurement. New/different power generation could only be a moderate part of the mix.
People are quite rightly sceptical of accounting for offsets, particularly offshore.
Razor was basically right, even if for the wrong reasons. We’re basically f*cked when it comes to .
whoops, hit send accidentally.
yeah, (I believe) we will do a bit on climate change, enough to keep us to only 4 degrees rather than 6. However, that means we’ll probably blow some tipping points and maybe hit 6 inadvertently anyway.
What does a four degree hotter world look like? Awful as far as I can tell.
whoops, hit send accidentally.
yeah, (I believe) we will do a bit on climate change, enough to keep us to only 4 degrees rather than 6. However, that means we’ll probably blow some tipping points and maybe hit 6 inadvertently anyway.
What does a four degree hotter world look like? Awful as far as I can tell.
Wilful and others interested in what four degrees might look like and who have google maps installed, try this
Wilful and others interested in what four degrees might look like and who have google maps installed, try this
Fran: do you know what your 1990 based target is in terms of reducing current emissions? The data I have on the combustion and flaring of fossil fuels says that the 2006 level would have to be reduced by 45% to meet your target. The total emission figure would be less challenging because we did much better with other sources of emissions but I would think that the figure would still be respectably challenging.
The election is too close to go with @65 as the main plank of your program. Ditto the removing subsidies/tax deductability. In both cases there are too many implications that need to be thrashed out first if you are to avoid a major fear campaign. Many would also object if you are removing tax deductions before there is a clean alternative available. Better to boost clean capacity and insist on preferential use.
The real question is what what are you going to have in place by mid 2013 and what effect will this have? We are sick of promises that assume no change of government in the foreseeable future.
There are tangible things you could commit to. There is no reason why a series of contracts could not be signed for cleaning up electricity or other specific climate action before mid 2013. If you want to meet the targets you are talking about there is no particular reason why the contracts could not cover the equivalent of replacing coal fired with CCGT – to give a 60% reduction in power related emissions with power costs rising by less that 2 cents/kWh starting around 2016.
There is also no reason why you couldn’t commit to setting up a system to reduce the fuel consumption of new cars or other low cost actions that can be achieved with existing technology.
If you have committed to these things it is not unreasonable to talk about investigating what else should be done to meet longer term targets.
Fran: do you know what your 1990 based target is in terms of reducing current emissions? The data I have on the combustion and flaring of fossil fuels says that the 2006 level would have to be reduced by 45% to meet your target. The total emission figure would be less challenging because we did much better with other sources of emissions but I would think that the figure would still be respectably challenging.
The election is too close to go with @65 as the main plank of your program. Ditto the removing subsidies/tax deductability. In both cases there are too many implications that need to be thrashed out first if you are to avoid a major fear campaign. Many would also object if you are removing tax deductions before there is a clean alternative available. Better to boost clean capacity and insist on preferential use.
The real question is what what are you going to have in place by mid 2013 and what effect will this have? We are sick of promises that assume no change of government in the foreseeable future.
There are tangible things you could commit to. There is no reason why a series of contracts could not be signed for cleaning up electricity or other specific climate action before mid 2013. If you want to meet the targets you are talking about there is no particular reason why the contracts could not cover the equivalent of replacing coal fired with CCGT – to give a 60% reduction in power related emissions with power costs rising by less that 2 cents/kWh starting around 2016.
There is also no reason why you couldn’t commit to setting up a system to reduce the fuel consumption of new cars or other low cost actions that can be achieved with existing technology.
If you have committed to these things it is not unreasonable to talk about investigating what else should be done to meet longer term targets.
I’d like the climate policy to look like the Beyond Zero Emissions 100% renewables by 2020 plan. Hell, I’d be prepared to stretch it out to 2030 just to be nice.
I’d like the climate policy to look like the Beyond Zero Emissions 100% renewables by 2020 plan. Hell, I’d be prepared to stretch it out to 2030 just to be nice.
josh, if wishes were ponies…
cheers fran, I don’t have Google earth here (no administrator privileges), but will take a look at home.
Of course, if you believe James Hansen (and he’s better qualified to have an opinion than anyone here), four degrees will equate to ultimately a sea level rise of about 70 metres. Which kinda breaks this little tool, which only goes to 14 metres.
John D
Off the top of my head I don’t know what that would be … I was thinking of the 2006 figure too.
I don’t care how close the election is. Choices must be made. If we are doing this seriously and keeping subsidies and not internalising costs then regulation — hard regulation — will be needed. People need to understand this. If putting a cost on carbon is a bridge too far we must either abandon mitigation altogether or find another course in this case, regulation.
Of course, the regulation could be a lot lighter if we simply removed subsidies, and for mione, this is the softest of the adequate interim measures. Politically, it’s the most saleable — and this, as you acknowledge, is very much about what is politically saleable. People get it that you get to deduct stuff from your taxes that the government wants to encourage — reasonable expenses. Do we think dirty energy is a reasonable expense? No. So deductions go and people can spend it out of their own pocket. Taxes are returned to people so they can decide to spend it on dirty energy if they want to, or make other arrangements. Gas power plants would have an immediate advantage
The trouble is that by BZE’s own admission, this will cost about $370 billion. That’s huge, even by 2030, assuming it would work and stay within that cost, which you can’t. People were iffy over $43billion for NBN and you’re putting something that costs more than 8 times as much or half an NBN every year. It won’t happen.
I’d like the government to give the RE people a test. Pick a rural centre of at least 20,000 people with at least one large supermarket, one hospital, one school, one service station and one water treatment works and town water supply.
The RE people are offered a budget of $10,000 per kW installed to supply all of the power currently supplied by the grid on a contract to match the average performance of the grid supply over the previous three years — comparable or better load shedding, plus emissions not greater than 5% of the best coal fired source in the country per kWh supplied.
They can use any combination of sources they think fit, putting PV on rooves or setting up KiteGen with waste biomass backup, CSP with molten salt — whatever. The lucky town gets to vote on the plan and if 75% say yes, they go off the grid for one year from the time the facilities come online and get free energy. Essential services have diesel generators at white start, so as to ensure that nobody gets hurt. This isn’t counted in CO2 unless emergency load shedding is threatened. We measure the embedded energy costs plus the environmental footprint and report on them.
At the end, we see if what the dollar cost per Co2 abatement was. If it turns out to be less than $40 per tonne and the performance of the system was adequate by the above criteria, we call it a success and duplicate it.
If not, we stop having these silly arguments about renewables and admit that it’s a diversion from serious abatement.
I’m sick of hearing about what you can do with renewables. I’d like to read about how well they have done replacing existing fossil thermal.
Fran: I don’t want Tony to win for a whole range of reasons. So at this stage in the electoral cycle I am not going to urge Julie commit to something like the removal of tax deductions that really needs to be thought through properly first. Tony would have field day and use it as another example of a government that is not doing its homework properly.
You say:
The messages from this post are that there are alternatives to putting a price on carbon and that some of these alternatives can yield the reductions in emissions you want to aim for in a way that results in more gain for less pain.
I would also point out that regulations are required to set up an ETS, carbon taxes, contracts for the supply of clean power and to deny tax deductions for expenses that are clearly an operating cost.
Without any regulation you will depending on voluntary commitment from individuals and companies. So far all this has given us is steadily rising emissions. It is all about finding the most appropriate way of driving down emissions.
John D said:
Oh I’m not against all regulation, obviously. I just don’t like the idea of regulating when we could stand back and allow a much more efficient mechanism — an effective price on carbon — to do most of the heavy lifting for us.
On the contrary, it would make sense to most people in a way that the GST did not, and because it would be revenue neutral and progressive in its redistribution, it would be very popular both with upper middle income ALP-Greens “values” voters, and below average wage voters. The fact that only businesses wanting to deduct “clean energy” would have to submit paperwork would also appeal to your small business types.
Indeed it is, but your means are too administratively complex and insufficiently ambitious.
oops … last line should appear between two blockquotes …
Fran: Characteristics of a good climate policy:
1. Good targets
2. Includes target action for next 2 years.
3. Has enough core action to cover most of target.
4. Core action easy to understand.
5. Impact on emissions and peoples lives quantified.
6. Leaves room to move.
What else?
John D
I don’t disagree with your list but …
it’s clear the system constraints exclude the immediate development of a good climate policy, because a carbon price has been ruled out and an arbitrary consrtraint also attaches to one of the technologies. In addition, existing illegitimate stakehoilder interests are to be protected
In thse circumstances, we have to settle for an inadequate climate policy, so as to meet a necessary condition of having a good climate policy, which you have overlooked:
7. Must be politically saleable and immune to obvious political subversion from amongst winnable groups
8. Must not obstruct good climate policy
9. (Desirable) must make good climate policy easier to achieve
My policy (the removing subsidies one) has these features and also meets 3, 4 & 6
It also requires no legislation — simply an ATO ruling and a ministerial change, so it can be implemented very quickly. It requires very little new bureaucracy and compliance and it covers all businesses, so there are no loopholes.
Fran: The questions you are not answering are:
1. What emission reductions will actually be achieved as a result of the changes? We could, for example, remove the fuel tax exemption that the mining industry receives but it is unlikely that km traveled will drop and the the cost of diesel is already a big enough part of their operating costs to attack attention.
2. What price increases are required per tonne CO2? Once again a bit hard to calculate when you don’t know what the reduction will be anyway. In most cases you work out what the cost of the subsidies is and work back to a per capita cost which at least puts it in context. You can also argue that there is a case for using your changes to boost tax revenue thus providing the money for things we would both like to see done. But this is getting away from driving down emissions.
3. Impact on lives? The environmental benefit will be greater when your changes actually lead to the shutting down of dirty industries. The scare campaign will try and extend this list.
What I like about cleaner electricity contracts is that you can answer all of these questions and we know that the clean-up has to be part of any credible plan.
John D asked:
I’m not sure, but you see, the changes would prompt businesses to reach aggressively for the “low hanging fruit” in energy efficiency so that when we actually got an ETS, it would be a smoother transition.
Perhaps they will begin producing biodiesel, from WVO or perhaps they would F-T from other waste biomass, since that would attract a deduction? At a marginal tax rate of 30% and perhaps with a fuel tax exemption, it could be economic.
I’d like, by about 2015, to have a price of at about $100-$120 per tonne of CO2. That will probably be close to the community cost of emissions then and is about the amount claimed to be necessary to make CC&S viable. I don’t think it is viable but I’d like to hold the coal folks to that.
Under my plan though, the interim cost of CO2 becomes the marginal tax rate. If it is 29 cents in the dollar that’s what the tax treatment finishes up at — and because it applies everywhere there is no escape.
You’ve also got to do something to prejudice the financial position of the worst polluters. A plant like Hazelwood would rapidly become uneconomic and then the state or someone else could buy the place at firesale price, retire it and build a CCGT plant in its place. As it stands, it is here with the blessing of the Victorian government, poisoning Victorians until 2031.
Well a carbon price of $100 to $120 per tonne CO2 would certainly stir some action but increasing the wholesale price of power by 10 to 12 cents/kWh might stir up more protest than investment.
One of the underlying differences between your approach and my approach is that you tend to support policies that aim at “putting a price on dirty’ vs my support for policies that “put a price on clean” and or insist that clean be used preferentially. For example, my “contract for the supply of cleaner electricity’ approach uses a combination of negotiating a price for clean combined with regulating to ensure preference is given to the use of cleaner electricity. I also have a preference for case specific approaches since I think different approaches suit different problems. The big advantage of putting a price on clean is that the average price only needs to ramp up slowly instead of having to jump quickly to the price required to justify the clean alternative.
Probably not, especially if we had already had some years adjusting to no fossil fuels being deducted from tax or subsidised. That alone would put the business price effectively up by 6-8 cents per kWh. We then add $40 as a starter and ramp it up to the $100-$120 by 2015. We promise to spend it all rebating people* and building new clean capacity by providing soft loans for businesses passing due diligence that can meet low CO2 and other public interest criteria.
*Some of that might be rebating super funds with stranded assets.
Fran: You said:
What you are talking about is certainly large enough to have a big impact on industries such as aluminium smelting and there would need to be serious discussion re what to do with these industries – not the sort of discussion to take place during an election campaign. I also think that removing tax deductions when there is not enough clean alternative available would justifiably irritate other business and paint Labor as anti business.
If you must go the tax route you may actually get a lot of business support if the tax completely replaces another tax as suggested by Amish @8. Particularly if the carbon tax is levied at the import wharf, well head and mine instead of being a major source of red tape for all industry. However, once again there are going to be industries that lose badly and the details would need time to sort out if a major pissing match was to be avoided.
In the short term at least direct action is what is needed.
Unwinding the GST would be a minefield, so no. Not viable and no margin in it. Better to swear revenue neutrality and progressive redistribution. That way you are immune — it’s not a new tax, but a new tax treatment and all of it goes back to the public. Very simple.
Aluminium is heavily subsidised by the public — so it’s not only dirty but each of those jobs is costing about $250k per annum. We simply say — can we afford that? Probably not.
Given sunk costs, contract obligations, possible loss of market share, vicissitudes of currency, it’s unlikely many aluminium producers would up sticks and leave. They would get behind CCGT and get it done because that would be cheaper.
If we want to attack climate change individuals must change their lifestyle and stop consumerism and materialism. Of course this will not be popular and so nothing will change. Consumerism is the elepjant in the room which even some environmentalists refuse to address. Stop shopping. If we did this we would drastically slow climate change. Instead we want governments to do something so the rich west can continue their extravagant lifestyle.
An intersting recent survey found that Many young people like to go on about climate change but they were far more environmentally destructive than older conservatives because of their extreme consumerism. Older people were by and large far more environmentally aware and lived cleaner lives than the loud but destructive young demographic. It is these same hyper consumers who think it is cool to vote Green.
Spana ignored the topic and said:
Not only is that flat wrong, but it’s clearly an attempted thread diversion. Individuals changing their lifestyles and eschewing consumerism and materialism is not a policy that Gillard can take to an election.
Spana ignored the topic and said:
Not only is that flat wrong, but it’s clearly an attempted thread diversion. Individuals changing their lifestyles and eschewing consumerism and materialism is not a policy that Gillard can take to an election.
Fran, the ALP threw money at people and encouraged them to go out and spend in the name of stimulus. I got a few thousand myself. Rudd and Gillard embraced a materialistic binge to prop up the economy. The irony of encouraging people to binge spend on goods whose production and transport destroy the environment while pretending to care about climate change is just bad and shallow policy.
As for a policy to take to an election how about this. Rejecting the market as all important and showing leadership by openly rejecting consumerism, banning advertising to kids, banning imports of useless made in China junk that people don’t need and massively taxing a large range of non essential goods. Ban the import of any foods that Australia can produce. Food miles destroy the environment. Not popular of course but without major changes to lifestyle climate change will not go away. Both sides will not do anything to tackle the issue because they need big business to bank roll them. Fran. this is not a thread derail, just a realistic view that sees that nothing will change without massive lifestyle changes. Gillard does not have the vision to do it.
Fran, the ALP threw money at people and encouraged them to go out and spend in the name of stimulus. I got a few thousand myself. Rudd and Gillard embraced a materialistic binge to prop up the economy. The irony of encouraging people to binge spend on goods whose production and transport destroy the environment while pretending to care about climate change is just bad and shallow policy.
As for a policy to take to an election how about this. Rejecting the market as all important and showing leadership by openly rejecting consumerism, banning advertising to kids, banning imports of useless made in China junk that people don’t need and massively taxing a large range of non essential goods. Ban the import of any foods that Australia can produce. Food miles destroy the environment. Not popular of course but without major changes to lifestyle climate change will not go away. Both sides will not do anything to tackle the issue because they need big business to bank roll them. Fran. this is not a thread derail, just a realistic view that sees that nothing will change without massive lifestyle changes. Gillard does not have the vision to do it.
Gillard is wrong about a great many things Spana, but she is right about one thing — having a vision of people making do with a lot less is neither saleable nor needed.
Living ascetically is a lifestyle choice. If nearly everyone in the middle classes and above did it, it would make a modest difference, but the problem we have would still be similar.
And it is still not on topic, Spana.
Fran/Spana: We are into topics here that would require serious homework before you could even start selling them. So they might be good topics for someone you want to lose to back for this election but hardly winners. Breaking our addiction to growth would be a good post election topic to explore.
I don’t think “breaking our addiction to growth” would ever be an election winner.
It is not only going to be cast as the politics of desuetude (they won’t use that word, but something more “retail”) but it is all wrong. We aren’t “addicted to growth”. That’s pseudo-religious moralising. Nobody wants “growth” because of a nice number on a balance sheet.
People want to be freed from work as much as possible. That desire is legitimate. In the developing world, they hope first to live like human beings, to have drinking-standard water at hand, secure shelter, light at night and so forth.
Neither major party is anywhere near good enough, given this rapid acceleration in warminn:
The trend to a warmer world is now incontrovertible.
Fran: We are addicted growth partly because we run an economic system that responds to reduced growth by putting more people out of work. If we had a system where the work was shared fairly a 10% contraction in the economy would mean that our wages would drop 10% and we would all have to put up with taking the equivalent of an extra 5 weeks holiday a year – hardly the disaster that losing your job is.
Like I said, the subject for a post election post.