Everyone taking part in the 'Climate Change' debate should really have some knowledge of how the 'Carbon Cycle' works! Can we go back to basics for just one sec:

Once you have had a chance to understand how the Carbon Cycle really works (Google Carbon Cycle or http://www.visionlearning.com/library/module_viewer.php?mid=95 this should help you understand how and why climate change is real. Simply explained – there is a set amount of carbon in the Earths total system and this does not change – EVER!!!! The only thing that changes is the state of carbon between gaseous and solid forms within this carbon cycle.

Earth as a planet needs a balance between gaseous and solid carbon transferral for temperatures to remain within the healthy threshold. This is because gaseous carbon dioxide traps heat from the sun within the atmosphere. Therefore, is it not simple to understand that if the amount of gaseous carbon increases as we decrease the amount of stored solid carbon through for example excessive deforestation (wood is stored solid carbon) and the burning of coal/petrol (stored solid carbon) for electricity, that climate change will result. This progressive trend of human influenced carbon release is exacerbated by natural disasters such as earthquakes and natural bush fires such as those in Southern Europe between 2001 and 2009 for example, leaving southern Europe more akin to the Saharan shift northwards.

Please take the time to study the Carbon Cycle yourself as it is fundamental to our situation now - but also provides us with the formula to one day way down the track be able to establish contingencies for 'carbon release' natural disasters on top of our own relative anthropogenic emissions - and most importantly allows the superman of the distant tomorrow, in fact, to control and regulate the global climate (within reason) and the amount of solid to gaseous carbon circulating within the carbon cycle (and also other relevant cycles). We will reach this stage of technological and scientific advancement where we know the balance that is required and we have the means to do so. And an ETS in Australia linked to an eventual global ETS is the path to this destination.

In order to regulate emissions we need to know the exact amounts from every country - and this is difficult - but it is not an excuse for developed countries to delay - in fact it is a reason why we need to be leading the developing world.

So step up and LEAD. Step up and LEAD NOW!!!!

At least all those who have called the Climate Sceptics "shills of Big Coal" can now have a quiet little think to themselves about how the world really works. Note the post-election timing of this announcement and how well it has been received by our PM who has quickly dismissed her pre-election assurances. Rather than appeasing Green voters it appears Labor's pre-election carbon price delay assurances were meant to appease sceptical and waivering voters. It's important not to let an election get in the way of a really big issue. The missed opportunity at the election, was for Australia to lead the world away from the flimsy scientific basis and economic self destruction of a carbon tax.

To the other Graham Palmer (is it Seymour?) - I've changed mine to Graham Palmer (Victoria) to avoid confusion.

Just for the record, I agree that a carbon price is going to be required, if only to provide a non-legislative process to retire coal assets, but still agree with the Nordhaus/Shellenberger (and Peter Lang) thesis that making energy more expensive ultimately isn't the answer.

I would like to add after reading John Bennetts comments more carefully that rational, intelligent people have throughout history done and said irrational, unintelligent things that are nevertheless explained by their historical and cultural contexts and their access to information. So part of the solution will be a cultural and educational shift, which is why discussions like this one are so useful.

Well, I do think a discussion of carbon pricing - assuming it is high enough to penalise fossil fuel burning for energy generation - begs the question of what cheaper alternative sources to use. I am not at all expert enough to comment on the costs but I would be interested to hear more about the political and economic obstacles to nuclear power. 

Firstly, can Australia actually install enough nuclear power in time to do any good, given that with business as usual we will cause major problems in 10-20 years. Is Poland in the same position as us, with respect to public opinion of nuclear and lack of technical expertise at utility scale, because they are facing 12 years of delays to get 6 GW of nuclear up. See http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE68D2JZ20100914 My own guess on this one is that doing nothing about it is a worse choice.

Secondly, if leading economists think that carbon pricing will help, how are they wrong? If we are serious about doing it we have the moral and political leverage to ask our competitors overseas to do the same. If we do nothing they will do nothing too.

Thirdly, just as a comment and seconding John Bennetts, not all greens are red, and it should not matter that some Greens policies may seem extreme (and are unlikely to see the light of day) - many are not extreme. It was I believe a member of Reserve Bank board who noted last year that the Greens Party had the most economically viable policy on reducing carbon emissions, and they did offer that policy to Labor.

Peter Lang has jumped out of his box on this and has attempted to lay waste to all and sundry.

I happen to agree with him that nuclear power is the only viable long term answer and that there are very good arguments in  favour of early adopting (like right now), with the aim of rapidly shifting most or all of Australia's base load to nuclear as soon as possible.

I also agree that there is every reason to believe that 1GW of commissioned and functional, safe and clean nuclear power is achievable each year from about 2020 if there is a will for it to happen, akin to the Snowy Scheme of 60 years back.

Where we differ, though, has nothing to do with either this site nor this thread.  Peter Lang simply cannot help himself when it comes to a chance to slag off about his real and imagined detractors.  They all become red raggers, communists, brainless zombies and counterproductive layabouts at the slightest mention of a tax on carbon or an ETS.

The problem, it seems to me, stems from his personal conviction that the argument in favour of nuclear energy RIGHT NOW is so strong that anybody who disagrees deserves to be pilloried, or at least told that he has left his brains on the bus several stops back.

So, Peter, if you are reading this, please stop stabbing your friends in their backs!  Leave your hobby horse behind and stay on topic.

By the way, Peter is a regular analyst and contributor to BraveNewClimate, which is well worth a visit on matters climate and energy.  It is only when he sees a green that he sees red... as it were.

Peter,

Thanks for your response,

I see your logic in your comparison about the comet, but note it is obvious the chances of a major meteor strike on the planet are exponentially smaller than the chances of an adverse nuclear incident occurring at some point in the foreseeable future.  The Comet analogy is also spurious because it is (most likely) beyond the control of humanity at this point, unlike the deployment of nuclear power plants.  

I started reading ExternE as you suggested but was curious to the methodology explained in the FAQ section, particularly the topics relating to;

“Not all damages have been monetised. There might be substantial impacts the costs of which are not included in the external cost estimates.

Is the risk of nuclear accident evaluated in an appropriate way?

What about nuclear proliferation and security in the event of terrorist attacks?

Are long-term effects of nuclear energy treated adequately, in particular, nuclear waste storage and other land contamination?”

I see the multitude of “unquantifiable” risks as a major disadvantage of nuclear technology compared to emerging renewable energy sources - to the extent that if those such as solar, wind and potential HFR geothermal increase their performance while decreasing costs, they will be the better option.

I will read the article you referred to later and if it provides a strong enough argument to diminish the concerns I mention above then I will let you know.

Regards

Steve

This comment has been posted by CS eds on behalf of Fiona Wain, who was unable to post herself due to technical difficulties...
 
I am constantly astounded by the lack of basic understanding of economics put forward by the climate change sceptics commentariat.   What part of collateral damage and its impacts on health, wellbeing, wealth generation and preservation and international security is not understood?
 
Nicholas Stern put it in straightforward language "Putting a price on carbon is a pro-market response.  Not pricing carbon is to subsidise a very damaging activity."
 
Do we want an informed market and to be competitive in the next great industrial revolution, or do we want to continue to undermine our future?
 
Marius Kloppers is correct – we need a price on carbon.  Because the market needs signals to replace last-century economic tools.  And for those who cannot think further than immediate capex costs please consider life-cycle cost reductions and broad societal benefits of not killing off planetary life support systems.

Fiona Wain

Steve Day,

You said: "P.S. Peter, while your experience in the past is obvious, perhaps this intellect may be put to more constructive use in other future emerging"

Steve,  No insult taken.  Clearly we cannot condust an in-depth on a web site like this.  I don't know your background, but most of the people who have strong opinions about renewables, have near zero understanding of what they are taliing about (but they do not realise that).  They are running on hope, wishful thinking and what they learn from groups like Greenpeace and ACF.  But all the information from those groups is more like religious zealotry than anything people should take any notice of. 

If people do not compare the costs of their concepts, on a proper basis, they cannot be taken seriously. 

Renewables are hugely expensive, will be for decades at least, and can supply only a small proportion of our demand.  Energy efficency will not cut demand, it will continue to increase.

If we want to make progress on cutting emissions, we need to recognise nuclear will supply the majority of our electricity.  We need to get started on nuclear or we'll be delaying another 20 years.  All these other ideas like renewable energy, energy efficiency, smart grids, carbon taxes etc are symbolic gestures if cheap nuclear is not available.  We need to focus on the main component of what will provide our emissions free electricity. 

Steve you also said:  "One point I will make with figure 2, is that it would only take one “black swan” nuclear incident to dramatically change the data in this graph"

Making statements like this is unhelpful and misleads people who cannot evaluate the information.  I hope you will take the time to read the "ExternE NEWEXT" summary report and then come back here and correct that statement.  It is a statement whose parallel would be like saying that an important chart oin the IPCC AR4 is eroneous because if a comet hits earth it will all be wrong.  I know what you are trying to say, but I suspect you pulled that out of the air after looking at just the chart and without appreciation of Energy Risk Analysis and the mass of energy accident statistics that underpin it.

Just suppose there was another Chernobyl.  How would that effect the figure?  Please make the effort to find out, don't just guess and make another wrong statement here.

“Craig didn't say that nuclear is risk free nor that any technology is risk free.  What is important to understand is that nuclear is about the safest of all electricity generation technologies throughout the entire life cycle.  Here is simple a reference:”

http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/07/04/what-is-risk/

Peter, thanks for the link, obviously there has been a lot of thought and research going into this but, the arguments are a bit more complex than this and not so black and white. I would be here all day debating all the points & I don’t have the luxury so I will agree to disagree. 

One point I will make with figure 2, is that it would only take one “black swan” nuclear incident to dramatically change the data in this graph – this is one example of the arguments being vastly more complex than you propose (please don’t  take this as a sign of disrespect to your experience and opinions).

P.S. Peter, while your experience in the past is obvious, perhaps this intellect may be put to more constructive use in other future emerging technology and not just closed to Nuclear only – Just a suggestion and I don’t intend this as an insult.

Regards

Steve.

Chris,

You said: "As I said, you continue to ignore the role that distributed energy plays as distinct from what your plan deals with, which is centralized energy."

Have you any idea of the cost of running our society on distributed generation systems?

It is a totally ridiculous idea.

However, if you believe it is viable, why don't you just go and do it withou demanding the remainder of society subsidise your bellief.  Because a belief is what it is, like a religious belief.  It is completely irrational.

Ronald Mitchell,

You say:   "finite reality in Australia is this; with coal so cheap and renewables so politically flattering, nuclear unfortunately does not, and will not, get a look in"

This is a silly, circular argument.

What you are saying is:

We must shut dowwn the discussion of nuclear because it is unpopular.  We must not discuss rational policy options.  We must not start the debate to educate the population.  But it is quite OK to keep on pushing totally irrational polices and options, like the Climate Spectator web stie does because they are popular.  Climate Spectator articles runs about 50 pro renewables articles, wrtitten by renewables advocates, business owners and salespeople, for every 1 article educating people aboiut nuclear.  And you want to shut down the pro-nuclear comments.  You are advocating exactly waht people like you were advocating in 1990 and ever since. 

So we continue to do what we've been doing for the past 20+ years - i.e. nothing!  And that is what you advocate.

@ Peter Lang - Pete - does your day job revolve around pro nuclear blogging us all senselessly? I see you criticize many people in these forums and basically discredit any form of energy bar nuclear. Most of us get the merits of nuclear (you seem to think you are the only energy expert in this space) but the finite reality in Australia is this; with coal so cheap and renewables so politically flattering, nuclear unfortunately does not, and will not, get a look in.......

Peter,

As I said, you continue to ignore the role that distributed energy plays as distinct from what your plan deals with, which is centralized energy.

My desire for energy security, independence of supply and to reduce my emissions (plus all the others in the process of installing solar systems) starts now, not in 15-20 years time.

 Your solution can't help us now, whereas some renewables can. 

I accept that such a plan as yours is necessary to support those who need a centralized solution (as soon as possible).

But by rubbishing our actions, you are antagonising those who might also support your plan and may well need its production in the future - nuclear or otherwise, depending which is the cleanest, safest, most reliable and least expensive solution by then......./Chris

Peter,
The last government to promote the possibility of the benefits of Nuclear Power was the Howard Government. We now have a minority parliament of Labor and soon we will have an Upper House controlled by the Greens. The only way Nuclear Power could be passed by the two Houses of Parliament would be for Labor and the Coalition to combine. Unfortunately, this will never happen while the government is controlled by the Extreme Left Wing, as they doggedly hang onto their ideology with respect to Nuclear Energy. There are some ministers like Martin Ferguson who do not oppose Nuclear, but he unfortunately is in the minority and has to bow to the caucus. Until the coalition has a majority in both houses, we will unfortunately never see Nuclear Energy up for discussion. This may sound defeatist, but I like to think that I am a pragmatist.

Bill, you said:

"but it is our government backed up by the Greens that make Nuclear too difficult politically."

That has been the excuse we've been using for taking no action for 20+ years.  How long should we continue to use that excuse for taking no genuine action?  We've also been putting in place symbolic, but useless gestures, for 20+ years, all of which achieve nothing.  Here are some examples:

1.  The "Toronto Targets" (1991) (Australia will reduce its CO2 emissions to 20% below 1988 levels by 2005)!

2.  Masses of subsides for energy efficiency, renewable energy, demand side management, advertising and education pamphlets sent out by government departments

3.  Many state based programs

4.  Natural Gas busses and much more

5.  Kyoto Protocol

6.  More renewables

7.  The "Pink Bats" insulation scheme.  This was supposed to pick the lowest of the "low hanging fruit".  The actual avoidance cost of the plan, if it had run to plan, was $200/tonne CO2 avoided!.  That's right, about 10 times the cost of reducing emissions with nuclear.

And still we continue banning nuclear and subsidising (massively) renewables and a host of other irrational policies.

Can't people see who the real dinosaurs are?  It's those blocking nuclear and advocating renewables.  Continuing the failed policies of the past 2 decades.

Ask yourselves, what would our emissions be now if we had not blocked nuclear since the mid 1970's?

What would our emissions be now if we'd allowed, instead of banning, nuclear in 1990?

Those telling me to get real are the ones who should get real. 

Get out and tell your politicians and your friends you want an end to the dinosaur policies that got us to where we are now and are keeping us here.  Stop advocating for wasting money on renewables.  Instead, advocate for low-cost, clean electricity as quickly as possible.

Peter Lang, I agree with your comments about Nuclear. This solution appears so obvious and a no-brainer, particularly for Australia, but it is our government backed up by the Greens that make Nuclear too difficult politically. While the general population believe the Far Left Socialist rhetoric about Nuclear Power generation, it will sadly never get off the ground until it is too late. I also agree that the focus is only on expensive "renewables" - the focus should be on saving the planet and that solution should also include nuclear.

Chris Sanderson.

Thank you for your comments.  Regarding these comments:

However I wish sometimes you would acknowledge that some people want a greater level of energy security

I also want a greater level of energy security.  But renewable energy wont do that and continuing to advocates it is stopping progress, just as it has been doing for the past 20 years.  Advocating renewables and banning nuclear is no change from the past 20 years.  The dinosaurs are the socialists advocating continuation of these demonstrably failed policies

At least that gives us 25 years of solar system life and energy security.

No it does not!  For get the renewables if you want to make progress.  They cannot provide our power and they destroy our wealth, which makes us less able to take the appropriate actions.

If we want to make progress the anti-nuclear, ideologically obsessed socialist, should drop their anti-nuclear agendas, stop the hypocrisy, and become enthusiastic advocates of low cost, clean electricity

I'm sure there is a place for name slinging and hysteria - maybe the footie or funerals. But what Kloppers was doing was addressing a business gathering in a dull and sensible fashion - telling the punters what he thought needed to happen politically for him to deliver value or lower the risk to his shareholders. It is abject nonsense that radical reductions in carbon will ruin Australia. Simple examples of waste are everywhere: watch the number of cars with single occupants, the relative amounts we spend on encouraging car travel vs walking and cycling (including electric bikes), the amount of water and power your teenagers waste daily having 1/2 h showers and leaving the lights on all night! Get real: most of the economy rests on vision and organising towards those visions: why holiday or buy new clothes or go to the movies? We need a vision of a different Australia and we need the political settings to suit. And Kloppers has said he can make some money out of it. Wake up the rest of you.

Peter, I respect the work you've done to develop an energy plan for Australia and you've probably reached the logical solution for centralized generation and distribution of clean electricity with production starting in around 15-20 years.

However I wish sometimes you would acknowledge that some people want a greater level of energy security between now and then, than they can see being implemented in the current leadership void we have in this country, to actually implement a rational solution.

As Nicholas Stern said the other day, if Australia doesn't get its act together and join the rest of the world to deal with CO2e emissions in the timeframe that science recommends to avoid 2-4ºC average global tempeerature rises, we will face global sanctions.

If/when that happens, we will have perhaps 1-2 years to do what we should have been doing over the last 10 year period. The resulting pain at both GDP and personal levels will be considerable as will interuptions to electricity supply.

For these reason, you may have noticed that there is a rush now to instal solar solutions at the distributed electricity level of homes and business. In fact anyone who has the space and finance to install enough panels to run their operations and probably fuel an EV in due course, are probably doing it now.

At least that gives us 25 years of solar system life and energy security. Hopefully, by the end of that time, we will have lots of choices about what to buy then - from both centralized and de-centralized energy suppliers......./Chris

Kloppers and his team at BHP seem to have done their homework. With the next boom market expected to be agri-food related based on huge global population expansion it makes sense in our wide land to look at reducing emissions via agriculture & plantation systems such as reducing CO2 via soil carbon, production of  bio-fuels from crop wastes etc.

The main issue needing needing attention is how to better manage our water and look at opportunities to move a fraction of our water from the north where over 80% of our rain falls.. The main pay back for needed canal and pipe  infrastructure will not come from water sales but future low carbon industry opportunities.     

Good on you Marius for stepping up -- well done! You can all fight it, but renewable energy is the answer, in all its forms, and we will always need resources and mining so do not worry about your jobs!

Peter,
Excellent comments, but I still think that we in Australia have to start doing something and as soon as possible. I realize that we are not the major polluter, and I realize what has been proposed so far would have destroyed our country with no net benefit to the overall problem, but we have to get our house in order. What makes me very suspicious of what has been proposed by government so far, you have hit in your first point - to raise revenue. This revenue would only be wasted on the usual largesse by the government. If there is an increase in revenue by whatever mechanism is introduced, this money should be placed in a sovereign wealth fund, much the same as has happened in some parts of Europe. What you have stated in your points, I agree with 100% except for your suggestions. We have to start doing something soon, and I think the likes of Marius Kloppers are on the right track.

Be it a tax or ETS/CRPS, it will create a price to enable other forms of energy production to compete on a more level playingfield. Without it nothing changes which is presumably fine by the incumbent generators of power.

What is it about change that is so fearful to those who do do have a vested interest in the status quo? Convince me that each innovation in the production of energy to date has not resulted in quantum leaps in efficiency and improvements in the standard of living?

Peter Lang has said it well. 

The greens want a single planet government without morals

The ALP want to stay in power

The Liberals want to gain power

I want a honest examination of the 'problem' to see if there is one and what we as humans can do about it.

As to 'climate change' gases one volcanic eruption causes much more than we mere humans do in our daily lives.

We need to look after the place better but will a dishonest tax do it. NO!!!!!

We need to help those less well off than ourselves and we need to wise in how we do that.

A dishonest tax will not do it!!!!!!!

If BHP leadership is concerned with the pollution they are causing then find a better way we will let you and you can afford it.

There is a better way and it will take some adjusting to but we will have to stop excessive consumption at some point of time and we can make things last longer and decrease our desires to have the new thing that will be on the market tomorrow.

Satisfaction is a key to sustainablity  and we might need to discover this one day.

Milton 

Giles, this an excellent article, but you have spoilt it by making out that Tony Abbott is the main problem. We all know that the CPRS would have made our businesses uncompetitive and would have resulted in massive unemployment if Labor had its way. We all know that it was the Greens who really scuttled the CPRS by being inflexible, not the opposition. The greens policy is too severe with absolutely NO consideration of the consequences. I am glad that the Coalition made a stand against the original proposals, but I also feel that something has to be done, and soon. If journalists like yourself could put aside your Socialist bias, and start writing bipartisan editorials, progress would be easier to achieve, but when you are always slagging off at a particular party, you immediately get them and their voters off side. I wish all journalists would put their political preferences to one side and consider the country for once, particularly in the environmental sphere. Labor claim to be green, the Greens think they know all about it, but in reality, they have not backed up their rhetoric with sensible action - so just don't slag of at the coalition as all "greeny types" seem to do - make a difference and be constructive by leaving politics out of it, or at least be evenhanded in your reporting.

Philip Machanick,

Why on earth would we want wind power?

Does it save CO2 emissions? NO!

http://www.masterresource.org/2010/06/subsidizing-co2-emissions/#more-10349

Does it cost 3 times as much as reliable, baseload electricity?  Yes!

So why on earth do we want to waste our wealth on symbolic gentures (windmills)?

You argue the current tax system is a mess, with which I agree, but you want to add more mess on top of the existing mess. 

Have you seen the 50 new taxes the Greens want to add? 

No one is arguing to clean up the mess.  They just want to make in more of a mess.  So government's have more revenue to buy elections.

Denmark is a world leader and exporter of wind technology. If we wait until everyone else has taken a lead, we will have outdated industries dependent on cheap dirty energy. Denmark is routinely rated as one of the best countries to do business. It didn't hurt them, and it won't hurt us – as long as we don't persist with the crazy tendency we have in this country to have weirdly complex tax schemes designed to keep accountants and consultants in business?

What I find weird about people like Peter Lang who raise a slew of objections is: where are they on the issue of the current tax regime, which is obnoxious in its perversity and complexity, and encourages inefficiency (have you studied the rules for the car fringe benefits tax)?

Why not roll all of this into a bigger-picture tax reform that refocuses the system on the simplest possible measures that promote efficiency and penalise waste?

Before we implement a new tax scheme, such as a carbon tax or ETS, we should be sure that such a scheme will achieve the desired objective(s).

Which leads me to ask, what is the objective of the proposed ETS or carbon tax?  Is it to:

1.  Raise revenue?

2.  Redistribute wealth?

3.  Create wealth and prosperity?

4.  Help poor countries to improve their standard of living?

5.  Change the world's climate?

6.  Change Australia's climate?

7.  Lead the world by example?

8.  Cut GHG emissions?

9.  Win and hold power?

10.  Act as an agent of change to help impose other agendas (hidden) on society?

I suspect the answer to these questions is:

• YES to questions 1, 2, 9, 10

• NO to questions: 3, 4, 5, 6

• The answer to question 7 is: that may be the intention of a few, but they are naive in the extreme.

• The answer to question 8 is: That might be the stated intention, but it is not demonstrated it can work.  I seriously doubt the intention would be achieved, without seriously damaging our economy, while we continue to prevent the least costly way to reduce emissions, nuclear power.

I suggest we should not impose a carbon tax or ETS/CPRS on Australia before:

1. 1. the world has agreed a mechanism to price carbon emissions and

1. 2. Australia has removed all impediments to cheap, clean electricity generation (i.e. nuclear)