When push comes to shove
Australian voters certainly have a sense of humour. With two parties desperately trying to look as nonthreatening as each other – no climate action, no industrial relations action, etc – the public says 'OK, you’re the same? We’ll give you the same number of seats!'
And in a development dripping with irony, we may even – dare I say it! – 'move forward' with some real action on climate change. Despite the best efforts of the major parties to ignore the issue, the likely result – a pro-climate action balance of power in both houses of parliament – could see progress on climate policy at last.
It seems the Australian public have, collectively, chosen wisely. They correctly judged both parties as unfit to govern and gave power to a middle group to negotiate and deliver outcomes. Initial impressions are that the three independents are likely to work together with a focus on good government, rather than just leveraging it for local pork barrelling – significantly more mature behaviour than either of the major parties displayed in the campaign.
Critically, over the medium term, Labor will have to face up to the collapse in their primary vote and stop taking the Green vote for granted via preferences. While some think the Greens will implode when faced with the need to play real politics and compromise, I think that is very unlikely. They recognise this is their chance to go mainstream.
With around 20 per cent of the primary vote in a number of seats and over 30 per cent in Melbourne, this is a moment of great opportunity for the Greens.
If the greens go pragmatic and move to the centre, such a shift would be a huge threat to both Labor and Liberal – votes would start to bleed from both sides, rather than just Labor. We may even end up with a Green balance of power in the lower house being a common result and the Greens having long-term balance of power in the Senate.
If Labor ends up in coalition this time – which I think is most likely because otherwise the Senate becomes very difficult – the path is clear. Their best hope to turn things around will be to work with the independents and the Greens to fashion a sensible climate strategy.
The independents will most likely ensure this strategy is reasonably centrist and good for regional Australia, with renewables and agriculture being key focus areas. The Greens will ensure that the policy cuts CO2 emissions by 2020, a key result missing from the CPRS.
It is very hard to imagine Labor wanting to go the next election looking so incredibly lame on this issue again, especially given all the indications are the issue will build globally in this time frame.
If the Liberals end up in government, they are going to have a difficult time in the Senate, even if they can hold the lower house together. Accordingly, fashioning stronger climate action could become critical strategy to get the Greens on side on other issues. We might even see a Really Small New Tax! I look forward to the spin on that one.
Either way, the result should be very interesting. Who would have thought an election fought on climate change between Tweedle Don’t Now and Tweedle Don’t Ever would actually result in us doing something soon. A week is indeed a long time in politics.
Comments on this article
persuasive videos
Hi guys,
i curiosity be sure what in your opinion is a exact tube position representing iphone/android dev.
i demand behold a enormous numbers of install that just bid miniature private showing and apply to for a subscrtiption...
ie: bang you later.com or stuff like that...
disclose 'in short supply component'
this one
[url="http://mobile.pornhub4u.com/"]http://iphone.pornhub4u.com/[/url] but i am not able to seek the movie (maybe is just the galaxy s that isn'a able)
doesn't signify anything wide sparse
Geoff C - plse support your claims
"James Hansen has publicly admitted 600% exaggeration of his findings in order to obtain further funding".
Can you plse provide a credible link to this public admission as I can't find one. Thanks.
James Lorenz - you must be dreamin'
James Lorenz, if you think renewables are the future, just think what the cost would be to provide our power with renewables. Please, take a look at this:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/08/12/zca2020-critique/
and if interested in the comparison of options for Australia, on the basis of cost, CO2 emissions and cost of CO2 avoided, look at this:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/01/09/emission-cuts-realities/
what is it with the nuclear lobby?
really? nuclear power? even if you don't agree with the hippies, the bankers say it doesn't make sense.
Take a look at Citigroup's analysis of new nuclear in the UK last year.
https://www.citigroupgeo.com/pdf/SEU27102.pdf
Now please, let's look at the future and that folks, is renewable energy..
Reply to Shaun Colley
Shaun,
I agree we will have to agree to disagree. But I cannot allow your unsubstantiated statements of your opinion to go unchallenged. In order of prioirity:
1. You seem to think that nuclear is high safety risk and dangerous. That is false. Despite the public perception, and the fear propogated by the environmental NGO's, nuclear is about the safest of all electricity generating technologies. Google ExternE for more, or look at the second and third charts here: http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/08/13/wind-and-carbon-emissions-peter-lang-responds/
2. The cost of solar and wind power are increasing not decreasing. EPRI, DOE, IEA, EIA all showed the cost of solar power increased 30% last year. Wind power in Australia increased 25% last year. This is part of a trend that has continued for years. The renewable energy advocates have been saying, for 20 years, that solar power and wind power are economically viable and baseload capable now, or could be within 2 or 3 years if the government would just give them more money. This has been going on for decades. It is continually wrong.
4. The long term cost of managing once used nuclear fuel is negligible (about 0.1-0.3c/kWh). All costs of decommissioning and waste management are included in the cost of power for nuclear, but not for other technologies.
5. You seem to believe that Renewables could also be cheaper than coal if the externalities costs of coal were internalised. That statement is false, It is not even close to the truth. Google ExternE and discover the external costs of electricity generation by the various technologies.
I'll leave the other points and agree we'll probably have to agree to disagree.
Thanks Peter
Thanks Peter, As I said I have no problem with nuclear energy per se but I'm not sure about a few of your comments.
"It will take longer to get baseload solar operating in Australia than nuclear". - No it won't. I did not actually specify solar (there are several other technologies out there) but I'll be happy to bet that we will have baseload solar before we have an operating nuclear plant (and well inside 15 years).
"Renewable are at least 5 times more costly than nuclear to provide our power." - If you look at the cost curve for renewables this is demonstrably untrue especially if you include the real long term cost of waste.
"Nuclear can be cheaper than coal, it just depends on the regulatory environment we choose to impose." This is true of every alternative energy source - they all could be cheaper than coal if we price coal correctly.
"Risk liability depends on the regulatory environment." - It also depends on the actual risk - just socialising the risk to protect financiers does not diminish the risk - it just transfers it to taxpayers.
"The population is open and listening." - Which population? Not ours.
"Other G20 countries went through the same decisions making process as Australia will. Do you think that Australians are somehow less capable of making rational decisions than the other members of the G20?" - The nations you refer to introduced nuclear to their energy mix decades ago in the shadow of the global oil shocks when nuclear energy was the shiny new toy and we had not had a Chernobyl or a 3 Mile Island - don't forget it was massively subsidised. They also do not have the competitive advantage that Australia has in renewables.
"NIMBYism is easily solved once the economic benefits are conveyed, especially to the local community. Just look how farmers are being convinced to put wind turbines on their properties. Money talks in Australia just as it does everywhere." - You're not seriously suggesting that the prospect of wind turbines are looked at in the same way as nuclear reactors are you Peter?
If you think “people that control the flow of capital will not touch it” please explain why they are being built in the other G20 countries. - See answers above.
I appreciate your serious support of the nuclear alternative and I promise not to make flippant comments about getting on with you life but in the mean time I think we will just have to agree to disagree.
Cheers, Shaun
Climate change and emission trading
The comment " Emissions trading is about making money and has nothing to do with reduction of emissions" is spot on. Every ton of reduction is a ton not available to trade. Emission traders may be greedy but they are not stupid
I am not convinced that man made CO2 has any significant effect on climate. James Hansen has publicly admitted 600% exaggeration of his findings in order to obtain further funding. He is likely not the only one.
It appears likely our education system has been brainwashing its pupils on AGW and not giving any contra theories such as Miskolczy Theory and many others on internet. Shameful if true.
Climate changes, has always changed and will always continue to change. Life has always adapted and will have to continue on that path.
Sorry if facts of life are disagreeable.
Geoff C
Reply to Shaun Colley
Shaun Colley,
It will take longer to get baseload solar operating in Australia than nuclear. It will be at least 15 years before solar thermal can provide baseload power at the very earliest. US Department of Energy has a goal for solar to be able to provide baseload power by 2030.
Renewable are at least 5 times more costly than nuclear to provide our power. The recent ZCA2020 plan that proposed powering Australia with wind and soalr by 2020 is based on non existent technologies. None will be available before 2020, let alone rolling out 6GW per year as they propose. Even if they were available, the plan would cost five times more than they estimated and 10 times more than nuclear to do the same job.
http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/08/12/zca2020-critique/
Nuclear can be cheaper than coal, it just depends on the regulatory environment we choose to impose.
Risk liability depends on the regulatory environment.
The population is open and listening. All it will take to change is to point aout the realities and the costs of the alternatives. Other G20 countries went through the same decisions making process as Australia will. Do you think that Australians are somehow less capable of making rational decisions than the other members of the G20?
NIMBYism is easily solved once the economic benefits are conveyed, especially to the local community. Just look how farmers are being convinced to put wind turbines on their properties. Money talks in Australia just as it does everywhere.
If you think “people that control the flow of capital will not touch it” please explain why they are being built in the other G20 countries.
I suggest that the RE lobby will provide much more benefit for society if they let go of their irrational belief and pedalling of magic and get on with their lives.
Peter Lang: Why
Peter Lang:
Why push totally uneconomic renewable energy as our energy solution? Because it is the only way we will get the price of Carbon up to "exciting" levels whilst offering good volatility. Nuclear is too predictable - too hard to make money there.
Faulty data
The vast majority of Australians were promised and voted for either Tweedle Don't Now or Tweedle Don't Ever, in respect of an ETS, so how can that possibly be interpretted as resulting in 'doing something soon'.
With the breaking news of 'Satellite-gate', i.e. the US Government now admitting that faulty NOAA satellites have been overestimating temperatures for a decade.
http://www.climatechangefraud.com/climate-reports/7491-official-satellite-failure-means-decade-of-global-warming-data-doubtful
We clearly don't need an ETS based on the ramblings of economists who rely on scientific theories which are based on faulty satellite data, amongst many other shortcomings.
The big test for nuclear
I have no reason to be anti-nuclear and believe in a level playing field but the big test for nuclear is "If the ban was removed would anyone invest in a nuclear power station in Australia?"
The answer to that question is a resounding "No".
Firstly, Institutional investors realise that, even if the ban was removed tomorrow, it will take at least 10 (possibly 15 years) to get a nuclear power station up and running in Australia. Given the current downward trend in the cost of renewables it will be impossible for nuclear to compete with renewables by then. Anyone who thinks renewables will not be providing "baseload" power by this time is not paying attention.
Secondly, insto investors do not know how to price the long term risk/liability involved in storage of nuclear waste. There are promising technology developments in the nuclear space (including waste processing) but it is considered too big a risk.
Finally, no one wants a nuclear power station in their area - no one! You can argue till you are blue in the face about how safe they are - and you are probably right but until the nuclear industry convinces a majority of the population it is a moot point.
I realise there are totally new nuclear technologies out there (even Bill Gates is investing in a new form of nuclear reactor) and these are a big improvement on what we have now but it really is a waste of time and energy to keep claiming that nuclear is the answer for Australia. It isn't and it never will be because the people that control the flow of capital will not touch it.
I suggest the proponents of nuclear will be much happier people if they just let it go and get on with their lives.
Roger Westlake, If this is
Roger Westlake,
If this is a financial web site, then why is it only interested in pushing totally uneconomic renewable energy as our energy solution? And why is it pushing ever more government intervention to distort markets?
Examples that come to my mind that distort the market and have blocked clean energy in Australia for decades are:
1. ban on nuclear power
2. high investor risk premium for nuclear because of the politics
3. Renewable Energy Targets
4. Renewable Energy Certificates
5. Feed in Tariffs for renewables
6. Subsidies and tax advantages for renewable energy
7. Subsidies and tax advantages for fossil fuel electricity generators
8. subsidies for transmission and grid enhancements to support renewable energy
9. massive funding for research into renewable energy
10. massive subsidies for research into carbon capture and storage (CCS)
11. Guarantees that the government will carry the risk for any leakage from CCS
12. No equivalent guarantee for management of once-used-nuclear fuel
13. Massive subsidies and government facilitation for the gas industry, coal seam gas and coal to gas industries (despite the latter putting toxic chemicals into the ground water and the Great Artesian Basin water)
14. Fast tracking of the approvals process for wind power, solar power, gas industry, coal industry while nuclear industry remains band from even fair comparative studies by Treasury, Productivity Commission, ABARE, Department of Climate change and more. We can just imagine what the approvals process would be like for a nuclear power plant!
When push comes to shove
Roger Westlake...if you hadn't noticed this article is political and deserves a political response. You got one thing right though Emissions is about making money and not about reducing them. Peter sees this from a realistic viewpoint not an idealistic unrealistic and unscientific viewpoint. Roger look into the night sky and ask yourself how your line of thinking is going to progress things on earth. We humans are not that clever.
Hot Air
Peter Lang,
This is a financial website that focuses on providing investors with an insight on how to make money in the "new economy" - reducing CO2 is really a side issue.
Three Cheers for the Three KOWboys!
The Three KOWboys are a-comin tuh Canberra, ie: K-atter, O-akeshott and W-indsor and they're gonna be lookin for some action pardner!
I must say its been very heartening to listen to interviews with the above three fellas. If they do hold the balance of power I think it might be a great thing for the country. At the moment if Rob Oakeshott was running for Prime Minister I'd be tempted to vote for him! With Tony Windsor as his deputy! Its so refreshing to hear politicians speaking without having to toe the party line and constantly recite from a script thats been focus-grouped and shaped by spin doctors until its completely meaningless. The product that both Labor Ltd. and L/NP Inc. have been selling Australians has now passed its use by date and has started to rot from the inside. The electorate has caught a strong whiff of this over the last year and has decided to look for something a little fresher. The Labor Party has lost LONG-TIME supporters at this election that it may NEVER get back. Bring on the Independants and the Greens - the Emperor has no clothes!
What chance of CO2 emissions with sites like this anti-nuclear
What chance do we have of cutting CO2 emissions when web sites like this, the Greens and all the Environmental NGOs are anti-nuclear?
We were in a similar position 20 years ago - the government had a policy to cut CO2 emissions but nuclear was banned.
If we want to cut CO2 emissions, we'd better get serious about nuclear or all the discussion is just hot air.
While sites like this are anti-nuclear, I can't take any of your arguments seriously. For me, it is simply a site to promote your idelogical beliefs; it has nothing to do with trying to cut CO2 emissions.
It will be a wonderful thing
It will be a wonderful thing if the election result gives us some sensible action on pricing CO2. Arguments that Australia could not go it alone are rubbish if the policy is right, and a carbon tax could be the best way to deliver this as Robert Gottliebsen wrote in Business Spectator a year ago, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Carbontax-pd20090806-UN353?OpenDocument&src=srch
A proper carbon tax does not have to compromise the economy and nations which have introduced one have done relatively better than those that haven't. Not only that, but such nations are fostering the energy efficient technologies which will give their economies a competitive advantage in the future. Australia will be left languishing if no action is taken. Its economy will be increasingly vulnerable to the vagaries of the commodity market without any back up strategy.
Any 'direct action' approach should be referred to as a 'taxpayer funded' approach. Surely it is more sensible that the biggest emitters pay proportionately instead through market mechanisms.
Climate change sceptics do, I suppose raise the good point that we shouldn't accept the science on anthropocentric climate change as settled, but you can never be sure about anything until after the event, in which case it is too late to change anything. Looking at the balance of probabilities, failing to act is taking an irresponsible risk on behalf of future generations.
When push turns to dithering
Paul
Your optimism about minor parties' political power leading to real outcomes on climate change is misplaced.
Independents seem more interested in pork barrelling than effective government. Bob Katter (the dominant vioce of country independents) seems to reflect the last bastion of the 'agrarian socialism' which long reflected Queensland's provincial backwardness. Greens are in somewhat the same position as One Nation in 1990s - ie a party based on protest who is just about to discover, when confronted with the reality of exerting power, that they don't really know what they are talking about.
ALP and Coalition will support a minor pragmatic 'direct action' approach to reducing carbon emissions. No one will support carbon pricing (because Australia could not go it alone on this, and would make no difference to world's outcome by doing so). In any event the need for action to deal with climate change remains most uncertain because of the lack of balance to date in research - see 'Telling the Truth on Climate Change'.
http://cpds.apana.org.au/Teams/Archive/climatic_change.htm#Truth