Meanwhile, in Beijing
It’s ironic that in the same week that the Australian Prime Minister has found another excuse to delay the introduction of a carbon price, and chosen to devolve power over this decision to a people’s congress, China has announced that a carbon trading scheme is essential to meet its targets for reducing energy intensity.
China has set itself a target to reduce its carbon intensity by 45 per cent by 2020, and in 2006 set itself the ambitious interim goal of a 20 per cent cut within four years. It’s only managed a cut of 15 per cent to date, so it is moving on from charging “ecological compensation fees” to mining companies to taking what Premier Wen Jiabao described as an “iron fist” and closing down poor performing factories.
In China, you can do that. But in China they also recognise that is not the mechanism to encourage fundamental change. And so, according to the China Daily, the Communist Party has announced it is committed to a carbon trading scheme as the only effective measure to drive the investment and the transformation over time to a low carbon economy. It intends to introduce one within the next 5 years.
In 2007, when Australia last went to the polls, our political leaders were committed to a carbon market and it became bipartisan policy. One party was turfed out because the voters did not trust it to deliver, and another was elected in its place.
Three years later, the bipartisan policy is to delay. Under the coalition, the justification is that the climate science is crap, and sometime soon might be proven to be so. At least that is an honestly held opinion. Under Labor, the de-facto policy is to delay because its leaders are simply too scared to act.
So, just as Australia goes to the polls to elect 150 members of the House of Representatives to make decisions on their behalf, Julia Gillard has announced she will choose a random group of 150 people to decide if carbon trading is a good idea or not. Why go to such trouble? Why not get the audience of Q&A to decide, or the Footy Show, or Hey, Hey it’s Saturday. What about Judge Judy?
And there will be yet another commission to review the science and the economics. No matter that the Shergold report under Howard, the exhaustive two year Garnaut Review, and the green paper and the white paper on emissions trading all came to largely the same conclusion, and after the work of the IPCC, and Australia’s own scientific community reinforced the science.
Gillard is right in that there needs to be community support, but community support is best won through leadership, something that Labor failed to do with the CPRS, and its experience with the RSPT has made it unwilling to do on any subject ever again. As soon as this argument became difficult or complicated, Labor wilted. And four words – great big new tax – have gained such traction and sent it into such a blind panic that it no longer has the courage of its own convictions.
These politics of delay will have one decisive economic impact, the same that has been occurring for the past few years: it will stall the tens of billions of dollars in investment and set back the inevitable transition to a low carbon economy by years, and make it more costly.
As Victorian Premier John Brumby says in this exclusive interview in Climate Spectator today: “Whether you look at Japan, whether you look at China, whether you look at India, whether you look at parts of Europe, particularly Germany, or whether you look at the United States, the rest of the world is now moving quite rapidly in this space, and we need to be at the front of the wave, not the back. So we do need to move … clearly a carbon price would provide more certainty, a clear pathway forward and would ensure that we get the investment we need.”
Sadly, you won’t here that sort of argument from a federal politician right now. But you will in China.
Comments on this article
Coal Mining In China
See http://www.capitalvue.com/home/CE-news/inset/@10063/post/1202723 this article says with some pride that China will open 20 more open cut coal mines by 2015. This will more than double their production to over 500 million tons per annum. So I do not understand the logic should we be increasing our coal production so that we too can reduce CO2?
Giles please consider this qoute "Reporter's are faced with the daily choice of painstakingly researching stories or writing whatever people tell them. Both approaches pay the same" Scott Adams.
You need to do some research at the moment you are a worthless mouthpiece without substance. If you are of the green bent then China is your enemy. They more than likely scuttled Copenhagen and could be responsible for Climategate wake up damn it!
"Said Hanrahan"
My reply to John Bennetts , Grant Ozolins and Giles Parkinson and other-like-minded-persons ! :
Please go to wiki Said Hanrahan (poem by P.J.Hartigan),read it , understand it and then re-read your miserable letters. Then have a decent laugh !
It will help you to regain your perspective. You have ALL been imbibing FAR TOO MUCH PROPAGANDA lately.You really need to "cleanse" your minds and re-evaluate this entire issue.You have been(still are ) being manipulated by a wave of self-interested bureaucrats masquerading as saviours-of-the-human-race ( a la Lily The Pink ).
Unfortunately,THEY have ALL been laughing all the way to the bank ! ( and it is YOU they are laughing at ! ) They have managed to coerce and persuade many "scientists" (and many otherwise impeccable professionals) into lending their MORAL AND INTELLECTUAUL support by appealing to "their best interests" ( such as having a paper published,an award being offered,a grant being made available,the continuance of funding for an existing project, a nobel peace prize {for offering good intentions ? } etc ) All about as subtle as a brick-through-a plateglass-window , but very effective overall. None of this is new. It has proved effective in the past and is hard to resist, just look around your own home to see all the "things you had to have" cluttering up the place. Not your fault ? Well, actually , yes it is ! A proper ,cold ,hard , unbiased appraisal of the facts would have produced a different outcome. The same goes with this spin on global warming ! The Earth is warming ! Very slightly and beneficially as we can grow more food and feed more people ! ( Not a hell of a lot happens under an ice-sheet and as recently as 11,000 years ago MOST of the agricultural land we know of and use today was covered in ice or frozen solid like the tundra is today ! ) In this tiny,wonderful,warm window-of-opportunity since then, this entire human civilization has emerged and flourished. We need to enjoy it while we have it ! ( because geologically speaking,we are in a warm "interval" in the middle of an ice age and it could revert sometime soon) We get most of our warmth from the Sun ! A bit from burning fossil fuels and wood and dung , a bit from "burning" food (internally),and a bit from thermal-pools and volcanic activity. Thank goodness for the Sun ! It has managed to maintain the planet at or about the current temperature for millions of years WITH or WITHOUT the major green-house-gas WATER VAPOUR , and certainly despite the tiny traces of Carbon Dioxide. Please NOTE WELL : Without Carbon Dioxide there would be no photosynthesis ! That means no plants ! That means no OXYGEN ! That means no FOOD ! That means no animal life and THAT means NO US ! So , thank goodness for Carbon Dioxide. We are a carbon-based lifeform and that is our source.
So , where is the problem !!!???????????
It really has to do with MONEY !
With oil running-out ( pardon the pun......especially in the Gulf of Mexico ) the huge revenue base available to governments of all-ilks will also become depleted.The obvious answer is to implement a "World-saving" carbon tax ! Simply convince or coerce the multitude that it is in their best interests and then tap in to the money-flow ! Just like Enron with the Sulphur Dioxide tax after the introduction of "The clean air act" in the USA. (Pity about Enron collapsing......they stood to make $squillions$ from that "nasty Carbon Dioxide pollution" ! )
Just tax us for the "air-we-breathe-out " !
Please DON'T blindly support all the wonderful BUT MISLED and MISLEADING organisations that clamour for your financial support ( and your VOTE ! ) without thoroughly checking out this issue.
We are cowards
As a polity, Australia is addicted to the easy, cheap energy and profits provided by coal, and are uncomfortable with facing up to huge amount of atmospheric pollution (not only CO2 but also many other nasties) that burning coal causes. That's because we have happily treated atmospheric pollution as a cost-free externality up until now.
Those who deny the impact of hundreds of billions of tons of pollutant gases on our atmosphere, usually because the (overwhelming) scientific consensus doesn't fit into their profit-centered world view, are just the most visible end of a spectrum of cowardice that spreads across the community, as even those who agree with the science are reluctant to pay more for anything - and our politicians are the biggest cowards of all as they hate telling us anything that might make us a bit uncomfortable.
At this rate we are going to be left a LONG way behind by the rest of the world, as they move ahead with cleaner, greener energy sources, while we have this pathetic squabble that passes for political debate.
Chinese rope-a-dope
Well said, Cameron Hoare! China is very good at exploiting Western ecochondria and developed nations appear embarrassed by the industries that nurture them.
The silliest part of all this is that we now treat an environmental asset, formerly known as an essential trace gas, as "pollution".
Carbon Intensity
Carbon intensity reduction is totally different from emissions reduction. Considering that the carbon intensity (tonnes CO2 emitted per $1M GDP equivalent) of China's economy is already 4 to 5 times greater than Australia's (2500 compared with 500) a 45 % reduction will still leave it a long way behind were Australia currently is. As the carbon intensity of economies natural decrease with development this is hardly a big ask for China. I am sure that if Australia's targets were stated as reductions in carbon intensity it would not be as worrying. As the supposed issue with GHG's is the atual concentration of these gases this will do nothing for solving the problem as the total emissions from China will still be increasing at a rapid rate. China needs to stay in this game because it is holding many billions of dollars of carbon credits from the European system which will be worth nothing if a further treaty is not entered into after Kyoto finishes in 2012.
As I have stated in earlier posts. Australia should just follow China's lead. If they use Carbon Intensity as the measure then this is what we should do.
Prevarication, long to-do lists and inaction
James McKenzie may have been the first contributor to this thread, but it is a good sign that he is also, as I write, the last climate change denier to contribute, including his fact-free repetition which includes calling climate science shonky.
Peter Lang's two long to-do lists add up to yet another way to convince the decision makers and reluctant bystanders that, somehow, this is a complex issue. It is only as complex as we let it become.
In summary:
Fossil fuels, when burned, release CO2 and related greenhouse gases.
The concentration of GHG's in the atmosphere are causing rapid deterioration of the atmosphere on which the biosphere depends for its existence.
The concentration of dissolved GHG's in the ocean are damaging the creatures of the aquatic world.
Ice melting is returning water to the ocean. This, combined with oceanic temperature rise is causing accelerating sea level rise, which will soon become a huge economic drain on the world's economies and displace or kill millions of humans through flooding of low-lying areas.
Australia is, arguably, the world's worst percapita polluter in this problem.
Australia is far slower off the mark to attempt real action to attack this problem than the bulk of other countries, whether developed or not.
It is time that Australia's politicians acted to levy the fossil fuel industry a charge sufficient to recover from the atmosphere and sequester as dry salts the GHG's released through mining and usage of the offending substances.
It is time that our politicians found the cojones to support those industries and processes and changes in lifestyle which will reduce the consumption of GHG producing fuels.
What part of a public consultation will further clarify this situation?
Why are the two main parties doing nothing?
Because they sense, correctly, that the voters suspect that carbon change science which blames man made emissions may be shonky. The voters ,wisely, do not trust politicians to put in place a new tax based on a science which neither the politicians nor the scientists can agree on or understand, Sometimes science can be tough and correct conclusions difficult to arrive at. So lets wait a little. Under investment in Australia's power generarion and distribution is another mater which can easily be fixed if money is spent.
It's sad to see how trying to
It's sad to see how trying to "lead in going green and RUSH for an EPRS scheme when there is no rush" can be popular among us then. Yet we feel comfortable (at least that's how both major parties sense it) with doing nothing. We are one of the worst polluters per capita in the world. Unlike developing nations like China who can improve quickly with any improvements in the many new developments, most of our infrastrures are already developed and improvements will be much more difficult and painful. So we risk been hit harder when the world demands something better. Too little worries have been shown so far. Why blame the politicians and spin doctors when we ask for it. Show more concerns that's the only way I can see democracy works or else wait for a virtuous King to arrive.
Chinas' next move.
To "protect its' own mining industry" China will impose an import tariff on coal from any developed country that does not have a CO2 reduction scheme in place.
A "Must Read" article
Excellently summarised Giles.
How quickly some Australian politicians seem to forget the exhaustive and extensive work already done and still of value. How easy it is for some Australian politicians to ignore national and regional progress overseas.
It appears that leadership for the good government of the Australian economy and people is sadly lacking at present. What better time to measure community consensus on each party's short, medium and long term commitments (to improve Australian law to provide sufficient certainty for investment decisions to be made by the business community) than during an election!
Why climate policy action works better at state-territory level
There are good systemic reasons why Labor-led governments at state and territory levels are now clearly taking the lead on climate policy action - in Victoria, SA,and the ACT. And see my recent talks to ACT LoveFortyPercent (targeting a 40% ACT net emissions reduction by 2020) campaign audiences:
http://www.see-change.org.au/?q=node/232 and
http://www.see-change.org.au/?q=node/235
Actually, the community consensus Gillard seeks is best built by resolute energy action at state and territory levels. This is the way to outflank the powerful coal and climate denialist lobbies, which have Federal MPs pretty much spooked . And see my book '"Crunch Time" .
Tony Kevin
What do we have to do to get clean electricity?
What do we have to do to get clean electricity?
1. educate the population to reduce the irrational fears about nuclear energy
2. Establish a regulatory environment that does no penalise clean electricity
3. Remove the investor risk premium
4. Avoid/Remove/Offset the ‘First of a Kind’ costs
How?
1. Establish a “Clean Energy” faculty in at least one university in each state
2. Establish “Clean Power Australia” – a government funded agency, that is independent of political interference, like the Reserve Bank of Australia. The terms of reference for ‘Clean Power Australia’ will be something like:
a. Define how Australia should proceed to get clean energy at a cost that is cheaper than dirty energy, (fund research as necessary to achieve this objective)
b. Develop detailed implementation plans
c. Provide policy advice to government
d. Establish and oversee the Australian regulatory authority for clean power.
3. The government shall remove investor risk premium by:
a. Removing all anti-competitive regulations such as RET, RECs, FiT, subsidies, tax and other incentives
b. Removing all legislative bans on nuclear and all other disincentives
c. Legislating that any future changes of laws or government regulations, implemented by any level of government, that disadvantage the generator will be compensated.
d. The government will have a large stake in the success of the ventures. This is necessary to convince the investors that the government will act to prevent public disruption. Delays will cost the government. Best practice risk management is for the party that is best able to control the risk to carry that risk. So, all cost of delays caused by public disruption, union strikes, etc will be compensated by the government.
4. The government shall carry the ‘First of a Kind’ costs. The justification for doing so is:
a. We have been doing so for renewable energy forever
b. Society caused the delay in implementing nuclear, so society, not just the users, should carry this cost
c. Society wants the clean energy, not just the users, so society should carry this cost
d. Society wanted the cheap coal fired power in the past and has now changed its mind. It wasn’t the users who changed their mind. So society should carry the cost of the change.
No carbon price yet
We should not put a price on carbon for electricity generation until:
1. the world agrees to the rules for carbon pricing, and
2. all impediments to introducing low-cost, clean electricity in Australia have been removed. We need a 'level playing field' for clean electricity.
We do not need a price on carbon until all the impediments to nuclear are removed. In fact, putting a price on carbon before the impediments are removed will lock in the impediments so they will take much longer to be removed, and some may never be removed.
This is why we need to allow clean electricity to be cheaper than dirty electricity:
1. higher rate of economic growth
2. stronger economy
3. more and better jobs
4. faster real income growth
5. higher income for workers relative to growth in prices of products and services
6. more tax revenue
7. more funds for services such as Health, Education, infrastructure and Environment
8. faster displacement of fossil fuels for electricity generation
9. faster displacement of fossil fuels by electricity for heating and transport
10. faster reduction in CO2 emissions
tax pollution first
It should be an obvious principal of government to tax pollution first. China's advantage is that they don't have a democratic process to go through. It is interesting to compare Rudd, who tried to govern in Chinese style and failed, with Obama who goes out and tries to sell policies to the people.
Policy failure at its worst!
When will we be leaders in this country and not followers? This citizen's assemby idea is a extremely lame and is simply designed to delay the decision. Voters must show they want action at the polls and it seems a Green vote is the only way to do this now.
Hey, hey its yesterday. Red faces rule.
Perfectly put Giles. We are back to bipartisan policy, but this time to do nothing. It is a very uncomfortable thought that if we'd left John Howard as PM we would now have an ETS well underway. And it leaves a challenge for voters in picking which major party to elect - do we vote for direct inaction by climate deniers or direct inaction by political cowards?
I think Hey Hey is Saturday is the way to go. We'll present an ETS vs a carbon tax and we'll see who gets the gong! It can't be any worse than the current process of decision making.