Let us hope it ( "The Money") continues talking long enough for the lack of a need to institute a punitive impost on a non existant problem become self-evident !

With the "climate change" evident in floods in most of eastern Australia and southern Asia including China, an increase in Antarctic snow-mass and cold winters in North America & most of Europe we may soon be glad of a little global-warming !         

Glenn Sargent,

You need to use your head too.

If it was certain that Aus would have the cheapest electricity of any developed nation the investment dollars would quickly roll in.

That is true.  But carbon price does not produce low cost electricity.  The underlying aoiim is to cut emissions.  But the least cost option, nuclear, is prohibited, and the prohibition is supported by the very groups what most strenuously argue for a priice of carbon.  They want renewable energy.  Renewable energy will not cut emissions significantly and will raise the cost of electricity enormously.

A carbon price before we have removed all the impediments to low-cost nuclear power (as distinct from high cost nuclear power), makes no sense.

While those who are clearly motivated more by socialist ideology than economically rational policies are more concerned about imposing their socialst agenda than addressing the problem, then I'd say we should wait until sense prevails.

Read the article closely. You are not going to get certainty until you acknowledge that you must have policies that address anthropocentric global warming!

Read the article closely, investors want certainty, fund managers would be happy with legislation that banned the introduction of a carbon price.  Most comments assume these people want a carbon tax, when all they want in fact is certainty.

If it was certain that Aus would have the cheapest electricity of any developed nation the investment dollars would quickly roll in.

Hopefully our government is finally getting the message that the science is in and that  clarity and certainty on climate change policy is essential to secure the economic future of Australia.

Link to replacing Hazelwood coal power station:

http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/05/29/replacing-hazelwood-coal/

Link to critique of the Zero Carbon Australia Plan:

http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/08/12/zca2020-critique/

See also "Emission Cuts Realities" (google or go to the "Renewable Limits" tab on the BNC web site

Andrew Lawson,

Thank you for the link.

I agree the 1250 character limit makes discussion difficult.

Wind power is subsidised (by mandatory targets) to about 2 to 3 times the cost of energy from conventional baseload plant and to about 10 times what the energy is worth (wind energy is near worthless - more nuicance than it is worth).

Solar power is far worse.  A massve black hole of subsidies - and has been for 30 years.

Algae, biomass. etc. are fringe technologies that are uneconomic and too small to have any effect on CO2 emissions.

Let's get a sense of proportion.

Dear Peter this will be my last comment as with 1250 character's there is no room to put any detailed or cohesive arguments.
have a look at www.mbdenergy.com

No need for government subsidy in our projects in fact to date we have spent $14M of private funds.

Last time I looked the wind and solar projects in China were doing OK actually better they are thriving.

I personally think nuclear has a role to play and that uranium is not the only source but in fact we have a number of no weapons grade alternatives.

Maybe if you spent some time in China, India or even the US you might see what Exxon, Shell and others are doing - these companies are pursuing algae and other technologies to make money. To find productive and commercial uses for carbon - sustainability and environment benefits are positive outcome of the process and an important benefits but unless they are commercial they will not proceed over the long term.

You won't find me pushing government for endless subsidy - I do see a role for them to accelerate early development but then to withdraw and let private industry pursue the commercial solutions Here is to a sustainable future.

Andrew

Fiona Wain,

You, and those who hold similar beliefs, are basing your beliefs on flawed assumptions.

1.  You assume that renewable energy equates to CO2 emissions reduction - it does not.

2.  you assume that renewable energy will change the climate.  It will not.

3.  You assume that renewables can become economic.  History and physics say that is not true.  For example, the technologies that the Zero Carbon Australia plan have based their plan on do not exist and are unlilely to exist or be economically viable before 2030, if ever.

Andrew Lawson,

You have listed many projects, most or all of which require massive governemtn subsidies (such as solar at 5 to 10 time the cost of conventional electricity).  Probably none of these projexts are viable without massive taxpayer subsidy or being mandated (which amounts to the same thing).

However, not a word about nuclear which is by far the least cost way to cut emissions.  Why not?

The answer to this question I expect is a mixture of a religious like belief that renewables are good, nuclear is evil, and "follow the money".

Your list completely destroys any credibility in your argument or your ability to assess what is in the best interests of the country, IMO.

Fiona Wain,

I am constantly astounded by the lack of basic understanding of economics put forward by [renewable energy advocates] and those who advocate meaningless actions, spin and no substance, and economically irrational policies.

I too am constantly astounded by the lack of basic understanding of economics of these ideologues.

Peter,

There are numerous projects are the range of solar, wind (AGL's east coast wind farms, the new Ararat 250MW wind farm...), geothermal, national energy grid energy projects and in relation to BioCCS projects our own projects at Tarong, Eraring and Loy Yang, Ignite Energy's coal to oil and soil carbon projects (500,000 Ha across SA, VIc, NSW and QLD), Biogas, Plantstone, Carbon Soil's grazing projects, I can go on.

A cursory look at what China is doing in these areas is a clear pointer to Australia of where future looking economies are going. There is considerable benifits in picking up the batton and running hard.

We can either decide that the world is going to collapse or as the 1000+ CEO's that attended the May Copenhagen summit (Shell, BP, Exxon...) and pursue those projects that take the CO2 and develop a commercial return from the products produced. There is a role for gmnt to accelerate these projects but they must offer a future that is based on commercial returns for investment and be funded by private capital.

Very easy to sit back and say it is all too hard - we just have to do some real projects with real outcomes. Andrew Lawson

**Posted by CS eds on behalf of Fiona Wain, Environment Business Australia

These fund managers are exactly the right people to be engaging in the debate to take us forward. And EBA is supporting many technologies and infrastructure projects that do and will take us foward at scale and speed.
To the critics, I repeat what I said a few weeks ago: I am constantly astounded by the lack of basic understanding of economics put forward by climate change sceptics and those who would stall meaningful action. 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."

...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 as we scale up new technologies and infrastructure, and the broad societal benefits of not killing off planetary life support systems."

Andrew Lawson, MBD Energy Limited.

Do tell.  What projects might those be?

Excellent.

I congratulate the investment managers on the development of a panel and the strong support for action.

We need to see this support backed with investment into commercial solutions that generate jobs, improve environments and transition Australia to be leaders in a low carbon future.

Clearly the link to investment into the technologies that will drive change and deliver a new economy is also in their hands. Governments have a role to play but increasingly business and private investment capital must also be available to accelerate commercially based projects.

I look forward to working with both government and the investment community to take up these opportunities. America, China, India and Brazil are all leading the way. Australia has all the drivers to position itself as a low carbon champion of the future.

The projects are ready.

Kind Regards

Andrew Lawson MBD Energy Limited.

Graeme Greenup - you believe any cherrie picked pices of information that supports what you want to believe.

Look at Europe.  Look at the mess its in (due to decades of irrational policies like ETS and mandatory renewable energy targets).

Have they exported their manufacturing industries to Asia coutries?  Yes.

Have they killed about 2 real jobs for every "green job" created?  Yes.

Who pays for the green jobs?  Guess who!

Has any of this reduced their emissions?  NO!

Have they changed the climate?  You tell me! :)

Those fund managers aren't fools and neither is BHP.

ABC RearVision 18 Aug 2010:

Annabelle Quince: So you mean in the six countries where they have been some kind of carbon tax introduced, there was no effect on competitiveness at all?

Paul Ekins: Not that we could find. And as I say, the macro-economic performance of the economy improved. So there were more jobs, GDP went up very slightly, and of course you'd expect there to be more jobs, because in almost every case the countries that introduced the carbon tax reduced the tax on jobs in compensation, so labour became cheaper, so employers hired more people.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/rearvision/stories/2010/2977448.htm

**Posted by CS eds on behalf of Harley Wright

It's pleasing to see financial responsibility coming from major funds investors, especially their CEOs, asking for a carbon price.

David Atkins, the head of Cbus, puts the issue succinctly when he says “Only policy frameworks that are transparent, long term and credible will result in substantial private low-carbon investment."

A carbon pricing structure enables efficient investment in the whole economy, whether the production has high or low emissions intensity.

In the current absence of a price, governments have implemented piecemeal and grossly inefficient measures. Like subsidies for solar PV, which are said to cost over $70/tonne CO2 saved.

This is an absurd cost. Any national price would be much less. The price flows through all parts of the economy, allowing for suitable changes in prices and consumption, with lower emissions.

The fund investors would be worried that the longer we delay, the higher the cost.

Yes, big money talks. It benefits us all to have major investment decisions made wisely so we optimise our economy. We all benefit through higher superannuation returns.

Having waited until after the election, it's a shame these CEO's, couldn't have waited just a couple more days. October 27 would have been the most appropriate date for their announcement as it has been named "Climate Fool's Day". This relates to the 2nd anniversary of the British House of Commons debating the Climate Bill with most MPs reassuring each other of the need to fight global warming, as the first October snow in 70 years blanketed the House and much of Europe.

Christopher Booker of the Daily Telegraph noted:

"If the Bill's intent is taken seriously, the cost of cutting our CO2 emissions by 80% would cripple our economy, closing down much of what remains of our industry and rendering most motorised transport impossible".

Nigel Lawson said in the House of Lords at the time:

"This Bill will go down in history, and future generations will see it, as the most absurd Bill that this House and Parliament has ever had to examine".

Surely the punitive taxes on petrol are enough. No more please.

And did any of them fess up as to how much they expect to add to their respective bottom line(s), or is this too sensitive a question to answer by those lining up to dip into our tax payers pockets to feed the sharks of finance with more money & power in the trade of an invisible commodity essential for life on Earth that's already been fraught with fraud & corruption!



The chief Alarmist, Al Gore (his movie filled with Convenient Lies exposed by the UK courts) is approaching billionairehood trading in Carbon Credits although his wealth may be waning because the Chicago Climate Exchange (partly owned by Gore, his GIM and associaters) price has slumped. (http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/)

Notice the Cos calling for a carbon price are all in the finance sector and would be hoping to profit from carbon trading.

Australia, being a strong democracy, should not bend to minority groups.  If they want certainty then tell them to plan on there not being a price on carbon.

Did any of them happen to say how much a carbon tax in Australia would hurt the economy?

Sounds like another self-congratulatory talk-fest to me.

These people know what the science says about climate change and they have the money and ability to be part of the solution and make positive change. Do we really need to celebrate the birth of yet another back-slapping committee? When are these organisations actually going to DO something?

Did any of them happen to say how much a carbon tax in Australia would change the climate?