"The Earth’s temperature is determined by balance of incoming solar radiation (“insolation”) energy and outgoing terrestrial infrared radiant energy emitted by the planetary surface and atmosphere.
As far as policy is concerned, what matters is not so much the costs to Australia of higher average global surface temperatures, but the costs and benefits of various policy actions which are aimed at addressing the possible undesirable effects on Australia of higher average global surface temperatures.1 This is a subtle but important distinction. Any policy contemplated by the Australian government should be focused on the net benefits to Australia of that particular policy.
Only a full economic cost-benefit analysis of emissions reductions versus alternative policies can shed light on these issues for Australia. No credible economist (or anyone else, for that matter) has demonstrated that there are significantly positive total benefits (let alone significantly positive marginal benefits) to Australia from the policy of reducing our CO2 emissions. There is a very good reason for this: since Australia’s emissions are so small, any benefits (both in total and at the margin) of emissions reductions are likely to be extremely small – almost certainly zero. The report therefore constitutes a solution in search of a problem. - The Shergold Report on Emissions Trading
As far as policy is concerned, what matters is not so much the costs to Australia of higher average global surface temperatures, but the costs and benefits of various policy actions which are aimed at addressing the possible undesirable effects on Australia of higher average global surface temperatures.1 This is a subtle but important distinction. Any policy contemplated by the Australian government should be focused on the net benefits to Australia of that particular policy.
Only a full economic cost-benefit analysis of emissions reductions versus alternative policies can shed light on these issues for Australia. No credible economist (or anyone else, for that matter) has demonstrated that there are significantly positive total benefits (let alone significantly positive marginal benefits) to Australia from the policy of reducing our CO2 emissions. There is a very good reason for this: since Australia’s emissions are so small, any benefits (both in total and at the margin) of emissions reductions are likely to be extremely small – almost certainly zero. The report therefore constitutes a solution in search of a problem. - The Shergold Report on Emissions Trading
Of course this report is being ignored by this Government who seem to have ‘a dream’ of what they will introduce. The trouble is this report has got it mostly right and in particular “Only a full economic cost-benefit analysis of emissions reductions versus alternative policies can shed light on these issues for Australia.”
This is one of my points in particular, the policy the Government is pushing in regard to Emissions Trading Scheme is not the best policy for Australia. Although a number of sources are visiting Alternatives, they are not pushing for these, why?
The answer is obvious ‘greed’ ETS will deliver the Government with a windfall, where to deliver a ‘real’ solution in assisting households to become solar efficient would not. Governments need to stop looking at the coffers and start caring about their constituents and the environment.
Although ETS is a proven scheme in Europe, we are Australia, and have better solutions available to us. What we deserve is a Government who recognizes this. All papers on Alternate sources of energy show the significance of making changes now.
This is one of my points in particular, the policy the Government is pushing in regard to Emissions Trading Scheme is not the best policy for Australia. Although a number of sources are visiting Alternatives, they are not pushing for these, why?
The answer is obvious ‘greed’ ETS will deliver the Government with a windfall, where to deliver a ‘real’ solution in assisting households to become solar efficient would not. Governments need to stop looking at the coffers and start caring about their constituents and the environment.
Although ETS is a proven scheme in Europe, we are Australia, and have better solutions available to us. What we deserve is a Government who recognizes this. All papers on Alternate sources of energy show the significance of making changes now.
Solar energy – photovoltaic (PV) panels – offer Australia’s best, most immediate, and most efficient means to provide zero emissions energy during periods of peak power use
reducing emissions, and reducing the need for new, high emissions power stations to cope with increasing demand.
In this context we want to set a clear policy direction of substantially increasing the take up of Solar PV throughout Australia.
In short, we want to set Australia on a path to being a country where everyone willing to invest is within reach of running a solar home" The Hon Greg Hunt MP stated on 28 April 2008
“The Government recognises that there will be adjustment costs for Australian
households arising from the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.
The Government will cut fuel taxes on a cent for cent basis to offset the initial price impact on fuel associated with the introduction of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. The Government will periodically assess the adequacy of this measure for three years and adjust this offset accordingly. At the end of ”the three year period the Government will review this adjustment mechanism.”
“Fundamental to the Government’s climate change strategy is a Carbon Pollution
Reduction Scheme. It is the best way to reduce carbon pollution while minimising the impact on business and households.”
“There is considerable international cooperation on clean energy technology and the Government, its key research institutions and business participate in all significant initiatives. Carbon capture and storage, solar and geothermal technologies have been identified as strategic priorities for Australia. With regard to adaptation responses, Australia will be able, and expected, to assist vulnerable countries in the region adapt to unavoidable climate change. Consequences across the region will vary, with some countries being particularly exposed in relation to climate risks, such as sea level rise, while others are potentially significantly impacted by climate change responses.
Assisting the region in this way will help ameliorate potentially regional impacts and support sustainable development.”
“Several Commonwealth residential energy efficiency programs targeted to address market failures and assist households, including those on low incomes, are under development and will be implemented in 2008–09. Those programs include:
• low-interest Green Loans, to assist families install solar, water, and energy
efficient products
• the Low Emission Plan for Renters program, which subsidises the installation of
insulation in rental properties
• the expansion of the Energy Efficiency of Electrical Appliances measure, to help
families identify the most energy efficient and cost effective appliances for their homes
• the Solar Hot Water Rebate program, to encourage the domestic use of solar and heat pump hot water systems, and the Hot Water System Phase-Out to phase out inefficient hot water systems used in Australian homes
• the One Stop Green Shop, which is a single, user friendly government web portal designed to link schools, businesses and families to household efficiency programs provided by all levels of government.” The Green Paper July 2008
So the Government in a 532 page document they call the ‘Green Paper’ committed 2 paragraphs to solar energy. This is a afterthought, and pure rhetoric, not something the government intends to seriously consider. Why? I said it before and the only obvious answer is ‘greed’
They begin with acknowledging the ETS will hurt households, and suddenly will cut fuel tax on a cent per cent basis to adjust? Is this the same Government that stood up and said “ there is nothing we can do to reduce the cost of petrol” when prices went up and we were in pain, now they have discovered they can reduce fuel costs, when it suits ‘them’. Remember in my article ‘A solar Solution’ I proved they could address reducing, Carbon Emissions, Offsetting Carbon Emissions, lowering prices of petrol and other services, and easing the pressure off Australian householders in very achievable and simple solutions where we won’t be ‘hurt’.
How have G8 members done under the protocol so far?
The EU’s environment agency projects Britain and France will meet their Kyoto obligations but other G8 members are struggling:
Canada. Emissions have gone up as much as 35 percent since 1990 because of continued increases in the exploitation of the country’s oil resources, calling into question whether Canada can make its 5 percent reduction target.
Japan. The second-largest economy in the world is also in jeopardy of not making its assigned goal. Japan’s emissions have risen over 8 percent, which means the country will now have to reduce emissions more than 14 percent by 2012 to meet its Kyoto target of 6 percent.
Italy. Greenhouse gases have increased more than 12 percent above 1990 levels. Italy’s target is a 6 percent decrease by 2012.
Germany. The world’s sixth-biggest carbon dioxide emitter faces criticism from environmental advocates and the European Union for plans to build twenty-six new coal-fired power plants (Spiegel), considered one of the main sources of greenhouse-gas pollution. A German plan to exempt coal plants from Kyoto requirements adds to concerns. Although Germany has managed a 17 percent reduction in emissions (very close to its overall goal of 21 percent under the protocol), much of those reductions came from shutting down power plants in former East Germany.
Russia. Russia did not face mandatory cuts since its greenhouse-gas emissions fell well below the 1990 baseline due to a drop in economic output after the breakup of the Soviet Union. Yet Russia has approved joining the emissions-trading market. As the largest corporate emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, Russia’s electricity company stands to realize large profits from selling carbon credits to other industrialized countries. Russia’s official RIA Novosti news agency said in January 2008 the country was unlikely to exceed the 1990 levels in even the expected post-Kyoto commitment period.
Without the United States and developing countries entering into binding commitments, other Kyoto signatories may be unwilling to agree to additional international commitments, says Elliot Diringer, director of international strategies for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. The European Union is likely forge ahead on its own to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions 20 percent by 2020. But after Bali, UN environment agency chief Achim Steiner said: “The bottom line is: there is no alternative to trying to find an agreement in which the [United States]… takes significant action” (Reuters).
As we can see, this is not a easy to fix thing globally, but what we can do is show the way by moving straight to Solar and Geo-Thermal energy and showing the rest of the world just how effective these solutions are, not going with a European solution that has worked for only two countries in the EU. We must change to the Solar Solution and become Australia - ‘The Solar Country’ now.
Kevin
They begin with acknowledging the ETS will hurt households, and suddenly will cut fuel tax on a cent per cent basis to adjust? Is this the same Government that stood up and said “ there is nothing we can do to reduce the cost of petrol” when prices went up and we were in pain, now they have discovered they can reduce fuel costs, when it suits ‘them’. Remember in my article ‘A solar Solution’ I proved they could address reducing, Carbon Emissions, Offsetting Carbon Emissions, lowering prices of petrol and other services, and easing the pressure off Australian householders in very achievable and simple solutions where we won’t be ‘hurt’.
How have G8 members done under the protocol so far?
The EU’s environment agency projects Britain and France will meet their Kyoto obligations but other G8 members are struggling:
Canada. Emissions have gone up as much as 35 percent since 1990 because of continued increases in the exploitation of the country’s oil resources, calling into question whether Canada can make its 5 percent reduction target.
Japan. The second-largest economy in the world is also in jeopardy of not making its assigned goal. Japan’s emissions have risen over 8 percent, which means the country will now have to reduce emissions more than 14 percent by 2012 to meet its Kyoto target of 6 percent.
Italy. Greenhouse gases have increased more than 12 percent above 1990 levels. Italy’s target is a 6 percent decrease by 2012.
Germany. The world’s sixth-biggest carbon dioxide emitter faces criticism from environmental advocates and the European Union for plans to build twenty-six new coal-fired power plants (Spiegel), considered one of the main sources of greenhouse-gas pollution. A German plan to exempt coal plants from Kyoto requirements adds to concerns. Although Germany has managed a 17 percent reduction in emissions (very close to its overall goal of 21 percent under the protocol), much of those reductions came from shutting down power plants in former East Germany.
Russia. Russia did not face mandatory cuts since its greenhouse-gas emissions fell well below the 1990 baseline due to a drop in economic output after the breakup of the Soviet Union. Yet Russia has approved joining the emissions-trading market. As the largest corporate emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, Russia’s electricity company stands to realize large profits from selling carbon credits to other industrialized countries. Russia’s official RIA Novosti news agency said in January 2008 the country was unlikely to exceed the 1990 levels in even the expected post-Kyoto commitment period.
Without the United States and developing countries entering into binding commitments, other Kyoto signatories may be unwilling to agree to additional international commitments, says Elliot Diringer, director of international strategies for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. The European Union is likely forge ahead on its own to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions 20 percent by 2020. But after Bali, UN environment agency chief Achim Steiner said: “The bottom line is: there is no alternative to trying to find an agreement in which the [United States]… takes significant action” (Reuters).
As we can see, this is not a easy to fix thing globally, but what we can do is show the way by moving straight to Solar and Geo-Thermal energy and showing the rest of the world just how effective these solutions are, not going with a European solution that has worked for only two countries in the EU. We must change to the Solar Solution and become Australia - ‘The Solar Country’ now.
Kevin
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment