Login / Manage membership        Not receiving GetUp emails? Join now to receive updates There are currently 342592 members.

Omissions Trading Scheme?

Posted on the campaign blog , July 16th, 2008
GetUp is concerned that today’s Green Paper, outlining options for a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, risks putting in place an “omissions trading scheme” that leaves out Australia’s biggest polluters and many other aspects of a scheme that would effectively reduce Australia’s emissions.

We have identified the following problems with the model proposed in today’s Green Paper:
• Free permits to pollute for trade-exposed emissions-intensive industries
• Direct payments to existing coal-fired electricity generators – allowing coal-fired power stations to expand, instead of phasing into renewable energy
• Cutting the fuel excise, instead of using the money to promote low-carbon transport alternatives
• A cap on the price of carbon from 2010 – 2015, undermines the scheme’s ability to price the real costs of greenhouse pollution.

Australia now has a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to transition to a low-carbon economy.

But this Green Paper offers free emissions permits – covering up to 90% of their emissions – to Australia’s biggest polluters. This goes against the advice of the Garnaut Review.

Direct payments to coal-fired power stations would undermine the scheme. We need to transition away from coal, and into energy efficiency and renewable energy as soon as we can.

We urge the government to reconsider subsidising the big polluters and instead begin planning a just transition away from coal for the LaTrobe Valley and Hunter Valley.

Climate change mitigation must begin now and reflect the urgency of the situation. Delay in bringing the big polluters on board risks compromising Australia’s emissions trading scheme from the start.



28 comments

Leave Your Comment

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Campaign Blogs
This blog post is from the Campaign Climate Action Now.
Blog Tools

Featured Articles

Join us on COPtv
Francois Chemillier
From Canberra to Copenhagen
Mark Connelly
Paid parental leave: we can't afford to delay
Anna Saulwick
What does a Human Rights Consultation look like?
Christopher Brew
Latest Comments
Campaign Blogs

Join Getup

Whether it is signing a petition, engaging with the media, attending an event or helping to get a television ad on the air, you'll only ever asked to take targeted, coordinated and strategic action. Taking action is optional, convenient and proven to work!
Join Now.

Subscribe!



Sarah Stuart
July 16th, 2008

The other bad thing about the green paper is that it removes the fuel excise - this is money that could be invested in public transport instead!

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Jason Wilson
July 21st, 2008

Sarah - we agree that investment in public transport should be a top priority for all levels of government - watch this space!

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Douglas Chalmers
July 16th, 2008

This is the result of your "demanding bipartisanship on ETS", GetUp. Its a fake! Its turned out to be no more than an excuse for raising taxes (again) by selective means just like the old sales taxes, etc.

That is, the taxes that the GST removed are being returned and imposed by stealth and deception. No wonder that the rate of inflation will increase by 1% (stated as "only" 0.9% to sound cute). You/we are being sold something!

Can you imagine a "license to pollute" helping global warming? And the biggest industries being given their licenses free? Ha ha, ha ha! The joke is on anyone who believed in this nonsense of Ross Ga-Ga-No-No. After all, it was only a "trading scheme" and NOT an emissions "carbon offset" scheme in the first place, duh.

A real scheme involved offsetting industrial pollution with cash carbon credits for planting trees in so-called third world countries, etc etc. That was NEVER intended here and it was only ever a ploy to get it up and running to suit the financial markets. When that was proven to be nonsensical, it was quickly turned to the government's and big business' advantage!

As I said.....

On a gathering (political) storm
comes a tall gay man
In a shabby "Greens" coat.....

A shadow is cast wherever he stands
Ross Ga-ga-No-no's "green paper"
in his red right hand.....

You're one microscopic cog
in his catastrophic plan
Designed and directed by Kevin Rudd
his right hand man!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrodaLzfi5s

Actually, WHO is the master in all of this, though. More and more, it seems that KRudd is only mouthing the excuses and platitudes of a very pre-arranged agenda. Sad to see Penny Wong first in exhausted despair then totally sucked into their nefarious game too, uhh.

And, sadly, all that the Libs can offer us in their dereliction and incompetence is that feckless moaning, whining drongo with a head like a toilet brush!

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Richard
July 16th, 2008

The government's response to the Garnaut Report is yet another example of the poverty of political leadership in this country. A reform is suggested, it impacts heavily on a minority so, instead of fixing that problem, the whole reform is abandoned.

The Rudd government has been elected on false pretences.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Kay
July 18th, 2008

The environment being such an important part of the government's agenda, I am shocked by the hypocrisy of the Labor governments.
In NSW hospitals, all the meals are served with cutlery, plates and cups etc made to be thrown away. The waste is huge!!!
If the government was sincere about the pollution from cars you would be supporting the search for an electric car which recharges its self or the hydrogen car. They would investigate who is killing the electric car.
You would not be building a desalination plant which will use more power; you would be concentrating on capturing the water that goes out to sea every time there is a flood. You would build overflows in our dams, which go to another inland storage.
Instead of coal powered power stations, you would be supporting Hot Rocks exploration, or using our huge reserves of natural gas, instead of selling it cheap overseas.
Kay de Bry

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Kay
July 18th, 2008

IF THEY REALLY CARE

The environment being such an important part of the government's agenda, I am shocked by the hypocrisy of the Labor governments.
In NSW hospitals, all the meals are served with cutlery, plates and cups etc made to be thrown away. The waste is huge!!!
If the government was sincere about the pollution from cars you would be supporting the search for an electric car which recharges its self or the hydrogen car. They would investigate who is killing the electric car.
You would not be building a desalination plant which will use more power; you would be concentrating on capturing the water that goes out to sea every time there is a flood. You would build overflows in our dams, which go to another inland storage.
Instead of coal powered power stations, you would be supporting Hot Rocks exploration, or using our huge reserves of natural gas, instead of selling it cheap overseas.
Kay de Bry

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
phildeerhound
July 17th, 2008

Douglas - or was it "Fong of the Inland" (its easy to confuse them at times) wrote:

"A real scheme involved offsetting industrial pollution with cash carbon credits for planting trees in so-called third world countries, etc etc. That was NEVER intended here and it was only ever a ploy to get it up and running to suit the financial markets. When that was proven to be nonsensical, it was quickly turned to the government's and big business' advantage!"

What a peculiar claim particularly in the light of the present performance of the stock market now down below 5000 on the "all ords index", from a high of 6873 earlier this year

I really wish you would try and check if there is any basis in the claims you spout. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but no-one is entitled to their own facts

The strength of an ETS is that it uses the power of capital investment in order to make major technical changes attractive to investors. An ETS makes so called "renewable energy" projects (and nuclear energy for that matter) more viable economically, without requiring subsidies financed by increased income taxes on the poor

You have a problem with that?. Seems to me the ones having most problems with an ETS are the Neocons you are so keen to deride.

Bit of consistency needed here mate - or is it all about disruption?

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
phildeerhound
July 17th, 2008

Getting back more on topic I understand that the nature and purpose of a "Green Paper" is defined in the following manner:

"a preliminary report of government proposals that is published in order to stimulate discussion"

As such I support GetUps actions in entering that discussion. For my part I would like to see one minor point in all these matters concerning such items as Emission Trading Schemes addressed and that is the Governments proposal to compensate the owners of existing coal and oil fired electricity power stations

I would like to see this amended immediately to include the proviso "provided these power stations are still fully owned by the original owners as of 1st January 2008"

The market price of a commodity always takes into account known future difficulties that might devalue that commodity.

If this proviso is not included then we may be confronted with the near criminal embezzlement action of one state Government first selling off its power generation plant to its chosen purchasers and then - a couple of years later ensuring that either they or the Federal Government give them back their purchase money as "compensation"

In this manner the New South Wales Electricity power Utility could effectively be stolen from the people of New South Wales who currently own it and virtually given to the Governments mates

This would be intolerable

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Douglas Chalmers
July 17th, 2008

Oh, I know that you are easy to be confused at times, phildeerhound, and I note that you have appropriately returned to the use of a lower case letter to start your, er, name, uhh. Such are one's omissions..... a bit of consistency needed here mate - or is it all about disruption? How about simply staying on topic, eh?

Hardly correct, though, that "the New South Wales Electricity power Utility could effectively be stolen from the people of New South Wales..." just by an EMT scheme when that has already been intended in one way or another for some time. Don't forget that whats-his-name, the former premier, went to work for Macquarie bank for just such a purpose.....

But valid point that it seems, you assume that it would be "intolerable' although a major hydro-electricity project devoid of water as a result of climate change could be worth quite a lot less a little further down the track, anyway. Oh, well, I guess that they could finally rebuild the original old township of Jindabyne as a heritage development, duh.

But, since that drugs scandal with Iemma, the police minister and the NSW police was exposed on ABC's 4 Corners last week ("Stretching the Law"), the entire judiciary of NSW should have refused to undertake any more cases or hearings of any kind until that question was confronted, thoroughly investigated and resolved by prosecution. That they haven't done so and never really have indicates their complicity in propping up such an intrinsically corrupt establishment.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
jack brown
July 17th, 2008

I don't get how every time there is some kind of "reform' in the wind it just seems to be an excuse for massive transfer of taxpayers money to big busines..... Now its happening again-instead of being making polluters pay they are now in line for a spectaculr handout of cash from ...who? Its got to be the poor old mug punter again! I cannot believe how sh*t this package is after all the puffing and blowing from Rudd and Wong. I am disgused with labour and right now I'm thinking that I won't even bother to vote at the next election. I can't bring myself to vote lib but I'm sure as hell not going to get out of bed for this mob if this is all we get. The Greenouse Mafia have one again- Getup you've got to go absolutely all out in drawing attention to this travesty-I'll pledge 100 bucks right now for some kind of campaign that exposese the utter cynicism of this package. We've got to get this thing back on track to reduce emissions and boost renewables or we are all cactus. Its time to call a spade a spade and for god's sake, any of those green groups who seem to be struggling to find positives in this-don't waste your effort. I was bitterly disappointed with the Climate Institutes pathetic response on Crikey-you are undermining your own currency trying to support this spin and industry largesse. Get in touch with your constituency-its them that change will come from, not your "clean" coal mates.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
blacksheep
July 21st, 2008

jack brown
Whilst I'm all for cutting emmissions, financing alternative energy etc.etc. This is a discussion paper.
Yes, those of us that feel passionate about climate change and the environment want true committment. Todays polls suggest that the majority of voters want an ETS. That would demonstrate the compensation factor that has been offered. This is a huge change and Aussies don't like to pay for change. The governments intention was to make it as far reaching as possible to spread the cost.If they can get the framework up and running that will be one baby step.This is a huge policy to implement and it will have to be softly, softly to start as Aussie voters are very fickle and governments that don't take that into account find they are ousted before making any real change. Have you considered voting for the Greens?

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
phildeerhound
July 18th, 2008

But then of course Douglas the judiciary of New South Wales is appointed by the Government so it is hardly a case of complicity rather a case of a breakdown in the separation of powers under the Westminster system

Another trick in NSW is to empower Courts that are more of a tribunal nature - such as the Land and Environment Court. The Commissioners of this Court often do not have any legal qualifications but are placed in a position whereby they are making decisions based in law

This makes it almost impossible for legal argument, however correctly based in law, to win over the personal allegiances of the Commissioners.

Local Councils fighting overdevelopment and inappropriate development in the Land and Environment Court are confronted with a system designed to expedite the will of Frank Sartor and the ALPs developer financiers, When ALP politicians retire they sometimes mysteriously receive appointments with Macquarie Bank or similar - like former premier Carr

Yes it is time Iemma and co were rounded up - we can agree on that one - and it would seem that even Sussex Street is in agreement there

With regard to Jack Brown's comments I share his disgust with the present mob as far as NSW is concerned but believe that the Federal Government is genuinely seeking to put matters back on a better footing. It's a big job

Boosting renewables however is difficult in that when you cut through the mythology they are hopelessly inefficient and inadequate for baseload power needs. If we want clean energy then for baseload power nuclear energy is probably the only option , and the sooner the Green movement grasps that the better.

But nuclear energy should be supported by the use of other clean power production systems where possible. Villages for example could often be powered using solar power and windmills, where there is no industrial power drain

But as for our large industrial cities with populations heading for as high as five million, windmills and solar are virtually useless

As soon as this is fully understood we can start building power stations that supply ample and even excess power for requirements - that do not pollute the atmosphere and bring ruin to the climate.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
blacksheep
July 21st, 2008

phildeerhound
There is also a lot of mythology surrounding the benefits of nuclear power. 18/07/2008 Britain's mandatory reactor cleanup bill for 18 reactors has risen to 83 billion pounds which has sent the government into a tailspin.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/18/nuclearpower.energy
Then read about the near meltdown of the reactor in Sweden due to a power outage.http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?no=309434&rel_no=1
Add to that, heatwaves and droughts put nuke reactors output to almost neglible levels.
This is before we get into the insidious leaks into underground water which is well documented in European newspapers. European heads are calling for an alternative to Nuke. Have a look at this site and links
http://www.waterconserve.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=42305&keybold=nuclearradioactiveleak
.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Billy
July 18th, 2008

This is an excellent point to make!

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Edge
July 18th, 2008

Want a real answer to the problem of co2 and transport. Stop exporting LNG (liquid natural gas) overseas. Put in place a radical plan to roll out LNG to service stations across Australia and subsidise LNG conversions for vehicles - everything from trucks to cars, busses - trains. The filling technology is the same for LPG (liquid petroium gas a by product of oil refining and petrolium production) LNG conversion for a standard petrol engine is relatively inexpensive and provides more energy than LPG - most vehicles could be easily retrofitted and new vehicles making LNG comulsory. It would greatly reduce vehicle emissions and stop our reliance on foreign oil - Australia has some of the largest reserves on LNG in the world. At the moment we have the silly situation where we import energy (oil) and export energy (LNG) - why not be self reliant with the energy we have? This would be a great transition fuel until nuclear FUSION - not fision is significantly developed in 30 years to be commercialy available and battery technology advances so we can run fully electric vehicles with virtually no pollution. Convert power plants to LNG as well, instead of selling it overseas and for the brown coal stations that remain - capture their carbon using electrical attraction capture and put the co2 into the pourus rock that the LNG comes from to bolster the output of LNG. Remembering that LNG is a transition fuel waiting for FUSION to kick off and provide virtually pollution free energy.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Billy
July 18th, 2008

Good work GetUp! Love this blog post

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Douglas Chalmers
July 19th, 2008

Uhh, they've added a "Reply to this comment..." function and now the blog runs top down instead of bottom up as regards date order! Somehow, the latest posts are not appearing in the "Latest Comments" box up the page, either..... #@%!

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Bene
July 18th, 2008

NO Free Permits
The message is simple. All of us as consumers are preparing to pay more for our energy, so it is entirely unfair to subsidise the worst polluters. Why should we bear the pain while the biggest poluters will have a public subsidy to keep polluting?

Tell your politician: No free permits.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
sam
July 22nd, 2008

Surely there MUST be some graduation to no free permits... we've heard the effect that an overnight change will have heavy polluters (lets say qantas as an example) so why not build in timelines to no free permits, once the international implications are clearer and respective industries have had time to formulate a defensive plan against higher costs (other than passing on directly to consumers).

the sustained damage previously inflicted on the environment needs sustainable changes, not knee jerk, destabilising actions

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
kay de
July 18th, 2008

The environment being such an important part of the government's agenda, I am shocked by the hypocrisy of the Labor governments.
In NSW hospitals, all the meals are served with cutlery, plates and cups etc made to be thrown away. The waste is huge!!!
If the government was sincere about the pollution from cars you would be supporting the search for an electric car which recharges its self or the hydrogen car. They would investigate who is killing the electric car.
You would not be building a desalination plant which will use more power; you would be concentrating on capturing the water that goes out to sea every time there is a flood. You would build overflows in our dams, which go to another inland storage.
Instead of coal powered power stations, you would be supporting Hot Rocks exploration, or using our huge reserves of natural gas, instead of selling it cheap overseas.
Kay de Bry

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Douglas Chalmers
July 19th, 2008

Quote phildeerhound, July 18th: "If we want clean energy then for baseload power nuclear energy is probably the only option..... But nuclear energy should be supported by the use of other clean power production systems where possible. Villages for example could often be powered using solar power and windmills, where there is no industrial power drain..."

Back then to your favorite hobby horse, phildeerhound, but is also apparent that viable alternatives have been more or less removed as a result of having done nothing in the past and having no plan implemented in the present. Even the USA is not that stupid and have hedged their risks with Australian-designed solar thermal power, etc etc, which has been ignored here.

In other words, the climate-change debate and the proposed ETS have been cleverly manipulated to give business and politicians what they want. Unfortunately, the LNG lobby don't agree and Rudd the Dud's government have tripped themselves up badly on their simplistic lawyer-devised agenda (aka Ross Ga-Ga-No-No's "green" paper).

Coal is being kept as the main power source locally because (a) they want to mine it all first before depleting gas reserves, and particularly (b) they want to keep coal-miners employed and happy in the short term.

Ironically, other countries are already far ahead on wind power and I couldn't help but notice the modern electricity windmill farms appearing twice in this clip [ http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=Gh1IfL3kCf0 ]. Where is it? XinJiang SAR in Western China! What do we use in regional power generating? Diesolene or diesel fuel oil!

This and other alternatives were deliberately nobbled by the former Howard regime and Rudd + Co are now using it as an excuse to soon push nuclear power upon us regardless. Soon, we will have another fake Green agenda being peddled to say why glowing in the dark is so good for us and yet another "green paper" being produced to justify the urgency. It is all lies.

Still no-one is even bothering to talk about SOLAR THERMAL power as a significant option although the main pilot plant is in Morris Iemma's NSW! Talk about an expedient Pontius Pilate pandering to the coal industry workers..... regardless of the ultimate cost (and the hypocrisy).

So typical of a government run by lawyers (Howard's and Rudd's). Never a "can do" philosophy but instead one of "what you can't have, what we won't do for you and what you won't get". Such muddling is then inevitably followd by the present dilemma caused by urgently insisting that some half-baked scheme 'must' be implemented, or else.

Of course, it is all always justified by someone with appropriate paper credentials despite their having no relevance to the main issues. Sadly, this time Ga-Ga-No-No couldn't even get the economics right despite being a supposed professor of economics, uhh. Thus the primrose path to our future is made stony and hard to walk upon.....

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Douglas Chalmers
July 19th, 2008

Al Gore's challenge - produce 100 percent of USA's electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources WITHIN 10 years. It's achievable, affordable and necessary. And we need to make this break from past habits and old ways of thinking..... "We're borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet. Every bit of that's got to change."

New video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idlJDcr669o

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
phildeerhound
July 19th, 2008

Al Gore's challenge sounds good on paper but the problem is that unlike the race to the moon it does not have - nor is likely to have - presidential endorsement.

This would be essential to turn rallying words into actual action.

So two hearty cheers are in order

Looked at from the practical viewpoint I strongly suspect that taking steps down this excellent path would quickly reveal that the aim cannot be accomplished unless nuclear power is included in the list of clean energy sources

Gore is right - we could achieve 100% carbon free electricity production within a decade - but I would add "almost certainly only if the nuclear amendment to the plan were included"

In the meantime America like Australia is an ideal nation for the powering of small, rural, non industrial communities with a mix of solar and wind power and other sources - so get on with it!

The real problem however lies with industrial cities that have over half a million inhabitants living in medium to high density housing. America has a lot of them

In my opinion a campaign to abandon diesel and petrol driven private motoring within ten years is equally viable. But again in city communities it would be likely that connection to a nuclear energy supported power grid would be necessary in order that electrically, compressed air, and gas powered vehicles etc could be recharged

Private motoring is here to stay. No economically viable system of public transport can ever provide a proper substitute. But a vastly enhanced public transport system would certainly reduce private travel ,especially if it was combined with a redesign of our cities towards a grid instead of radial system and a resiting of workplaces to reduce the need for commuting.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Bluecelt
July 23rd, 2008


If anyone has seen the the Government's green paper on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme they'll see that it's over 500 pages long!!! And this is just the green paper. Just wait for the White Paper.

The government's proposal is way too complicated. It's complicated because already they're talking about who will be exempt and who won't. The green paper promises to reduce the petrol excise to compensate consumers and to give free permits to generators of coal-fired electricity. When you start by saying that you're going to compensate one group and not another, you are 100% guaranteed to divide the community. Even the Reserve Bank Governor, Glen Stevens, has warned that the introduction of the carbon reduction scheme will be more complex than the GST.

Besides, the whole point of putting costs on carbon is to make alternatives more attractive. If you start compensating polluters and different groups, what incentive will they have to stop polluting?

There's no need for such a complicated scheme. A simple approach of encouraging investment in alternative and renewable energy resources through government subsidies, joint ventures (e.g. through the CSIRO) and tax incentives would more likely see new technologies coming online and a lot faster than this emissions trading scheme.

Australia has at least 4 options: Solar, Wind, Wave and Geothermal. We have thousands of kilometres of coastline with which we can utilise the ocean's wave power. And there's at least 2 ways in which we can use wave power. The up and down motion in the wave itself, and the current energy below the waves. With Geothermal it's believed that up to 10% of Australia's capacity can be supplied in this manner.

Given all these options, Australia should be at the forefront of renewable energy production.
We are not.

Germany, a country with a population more than 3 times our own, is at the forefront.Germany produces 10% of the country's electricity needs from renewable sources and has already reduced its greenhouse emissions by 62 million tonnes, meeting 45% of its 2050 Kyoto target. Then you have little Portugal, which has created the world's largest solar plant.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
phildeerhound
July 23rd, 2008

Bluecelt writes:

Germany, a country with a population more than 3 times our own, is at the forefront.Germany produces 10% of the country's electricity needs from renewable sources and has already reduced its greenhouse emissions by 62 million tonnes, meeting 45% of its 2050 Kyoto target.

This is an excellent proportion of power generated from so called "renewable sources" however your post ignores the fact that Germany's baseload power is served by 17 fully operating nuclear reactors providing about one quarter of her electricity - about 133billion KWH in 2007. These nuclear reactors are responsible for avoiding the emission of about 170 million tonnes of CO2 annually

Germany's wind turbines provide a little less than 5% of the nations electricity. All power sources are backed up by the European grid, mostly in Germany's case, I understand, from France, where nuclear power provides 75% of that nations electricity and is a major export

So one wonders what exactly you think Germany is at the forefront of - like Denmark it relies on backup nuclear power for baseload electricity

Were Australia to follow Germany's excellent example and mix nuclear power with other clean sources Australia would have about five nuclear reactors on line now - which is would be an excellent idea - but I doubt if you would support such a realistic assessment and following of the German example

Germany derives half of its power from fossil fuel powered stations - phasing these out using your chosen technology in the short term (which is what we have) simply isn't feasible. There is little doubt that when the Green movement joins the nuclear industry in seeking practical sources for clean energy, these will be replaced by a mixture of nuclear power and so called renewable technologies

And so they should - but it is the Green movement with its wrongheaded hatred of nuclear power that currently stands in the way.

Bluecelt is also a bit hopeful about holding up Portugal as an example of successful use of so called renewables, in that it imports up to 85% of its electrical energy requirements- so once again baseload power is mostly either provided by fossil fuel produced electricity or nuclear powered generators outside its borders. There is an element of desperation in its pursuit of solar power, but this may be practical in a largely non industrial small country - certainly worth a go!

My sad experience of solar options is that evenon a domestic level they simply don't work or are hideously expensive. There is a solar water heater chugging away right now on my roof providing me with enough hot water to bath at around 19 to 21 degrees (brrr!) and wash the dog bowl

The rest of the water heating comes from the so called booster - and this is a rec 4.7 system that came complete with the government rebates available from rec 4.2(the normal level) upwards

Dream on, whilst the rest of us try to deal realistically with the problems of climate change

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
ljraggy
July 30th, 2008

The Emissions trading Scheme is the wrong approach, They should not be subsidising any company in any way, Make them PAY. A Carbon Tax to hit the Companies who Pollute should be put to use rather than a carbon trading Scheme.

This will make us go green sooner than later.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
phildeerhound
July 31st, 2008

ljraggy says:

"The Emissions trading Scheme is the wrong approach, They should not be subsidising any company in any way, Make them PAY. A Carbon Tax to hit the Companies who Pollute should be put to use rather than a carbon trading Scheme.

This will make us go green sooner than later."

Fair enough. One of the major polluters is electricity production.

Your approach is to slap on a tax to force people to change their attitude and behaviour

So let's slap the tax on electricity production - that will vastly increase your domestic bills and the cost of all the items and services you buy

Now here comes MY question to you:

"How much do we have to slap on to the cost of your electricity bills, food bills manufactured goods prices and the cost of services before you will accept that nuclear power is the only viable, non polluting answer to our baseload energy needs

Should we double everything - triple it - quadruple it? - How much would it take and how much does climate have to change? - what percentage of desertification might convince you - what sea level rise?

Would loss of your employment help? - maybe you need the lights to go out during a life saving operation on a loved one.

If tax is what is needed to get the message across - indeed bring it on!

Meant kindly but sincerely

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
ThePowerStocks.com Team
October 15th, 2008

This blog is really nice and informative. We are pleased to know this blog is really helping people and it's our pleasure to post informative content on this useful blog created by webmaster.

Here's our market view on American stock market for 13th October, 2008

You all know my opinion - we have the characteristics of at least "a" bottom. Look at the scoreboard - Dow and S&P 500 down 18% last week, in only a week. If that doesn't show irrational dumping the only other environment that probably would is an official end of the world pronouncement from on high.

The VIX Index (69.96) soared to a record high; bears at extreme high levels, bulls no where to be found; valuation levels the best since Black Monday, October 19, 1987. And back then you could buy AAA long term munis yielding 10% or better vs. around 4.75% today.

No one can call bottom in advance with confidence, but we can correctly report that the conditions for at least a bounce are in place, assuming we are not headed for a 1929 depression.

We are not, but don't take my word on this. Last Tuesday, Oct. 7, Gary Becker the 1992 Nobel economic laureate, professor of economics at the University of Chicago stated in the Wall Street Journal - "we're not headed for a depression."

He states, "World economic growth will recover once we are over the present severe difficulty." Also he states, "Although it is the most severe financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930's it is a far smaller crisis, especially in terms of the effects on output and employment."

ThePowerStocks.com Team
Get 56 days free trial on our exclusive newsletter. Offer Limited.
http://www.thepowerstocks.com

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

GetUp is Action for Australia

GetUp.org.au is an independent political movement to build a progressive Australia. GetUp! brings together like-minded people who want to bring participation back into our democracy.

Make a donation today!


© 2006-2008 GetUp! All rights reserved.
Authorised by Simon Sheikh, Level 5A, 116 Kippax St, Sydney NSW 2010