I'd call myself agnostic on the subject of AGW. I am suspicious of the absolutism that surround the issue.

Last I heard, the IPCC put it at '90% certain' (maybe 95) that human activity is causing most of the measured climate change (and thus it was set to worsen).

The mandate for a political reaction on the other hand is certain, as only a fool would stake their future on a 10% chance that the scientists are wrong.

pjb05 wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2008 at 7:26pm:


There is a difference between what we call the Deep Green environmental activists and Environmental Scientists such as myself. Basically the sight of a fur seal does nothing for me, and while I support the principles of sustainable development, I also think that Nuclear Fission is necessary to fill the energy gap that will occur one way or another.

You'll probably find that most professionals in the field, including climatologists and oceanographers think in a fairly pragmatic and non-emotive way about such issues. 

There is no absolutism about climatology. Some areas have more uncertainties than others. Stephen Schneider's website is a good place to start if you want to learn some of the facts. The only absolutism is in the various climate skeptics, most of whom can't agree whether climate change is actually happening, whether it's manmade if it is happening or mechanisms involved. The only thing they agree on absolutely is that we should do nothing and continue to burn fossil fuels in the same wasteful manner.


Regardless of whether you understand the science or not, I hope you would concur that we're probably going to run out of oil at some stage anyway, so we need to look at alternatives urgently. It's not important for me to convince you or anybody else that there is an issue (actually several very serious issues) with Global Warming.

What is more important is the action that we take to avert several very serious problems.

- and generally shortages of energy, food, water and just about anything else tend to lead to war very quickly.

freediver wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2008 at 10:09pm:


Its not a strawman - its just a different part of the issue. The first is  the earth warming, the second is are humans causing it (and by how much), and the question it was relevent to is what we can do about it. Your crying 'strawman' as you are so fond of doing is just a form of censorship.

Why do you side with the dark greens on this issue FD - are you after their votes? Reduced consumption sounds like an austerity program - which no doubt would make them happy.

I would also point out the pragmatic case that measures that won't seriously damage our economies and standards of living are more likely to be adopted in practice.   

pjb05 wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2008 at 10:29pm:


Just my view on this matter - I don't think that the current market economy will tolerate reduced consumption. Our best chance is not reduced consumption, but substitution of renewable technology.

- and your point about the votes is precisely my bugbear with the Australian Greens. They have too much influence from the 'feral acerebral deep greens'.

A few years ago, I was Environmental Manager with a chemical company. We were pretty advanced in our Environmental Management System, we consulted with the local community regularly, and our system was studied by the Queensland EPA as a good example of a model environmental management system, and had some considerable influence in the development of the legislation that followed.

We had a (friendly) visit from one of these Deep Green groups, and you would not believe the guy they sent. At one stage, he urinated in the garden   outside the main office. The comment was made that the time that the organisation should at least house train their activists. I think the bargepole approach is probably the best one to take with some of these loose cannons.  

Either way, to combat the issue of Global Warming will require much more than simple reduced consumption, unless you mean an 80% reduction.

Basically it's not going to happen.

freediver wrote on Jun 4^th, 2008 at 11:12am:


The RBA is just tapping on the brakes so to speak. Energy use is very pervasive in the economy. Throttling the economy with artificial hikes in energy costs may well just make us less able to afford low emission alternatives. Renewables are very 'blue sky' ie probably a long way off as a major power source. The most promising power sources, of nuclear and clean coal will require big capital outlays - and for this to happen it is best to keep the economy strong.

Throttling the economy with artificial hikes in energy costs may well just make us less able to afford low emission alternatives.

But the goal is not renewables or 'low emission alternatives'. The goal is emissions reductions. Pricing mechanisms are the chepaest way to do that. Mandating very expensive options like renewables, nuclear etc rather than the cheaper options will reduce our ability to reduce emissions.

It's only theoretical that pricing mechanisms will do that. I don't think they will make deep cuts on their own. By mandating other options you know you are tackling emissions head on. A lot of fixed based power stations are government owned or subsidised anyway. Government spending on nuclear or clean coal has a different economic effect than taxing consumers. It can actually stimulate the economy by providing a Keynsian boost. 

In any case, I thought you favoured cheaper options like efficiency? Or is that only if the government picks and chooses the efficiency options?

They can mandate more efficient devices, cars etc. I'm wary about putting extra taxes on low and middle income earners. The high oil price we have at the moment is already encouraging efficiency.

Renewables are very 'blue sky'

The cheapest large scale option, wind, is not blue sky. It has been around for millenia as a source of industrial power. The next best one, hydro, is also one of the oldest, but is a bit more limited for cheap options.

Is wind large scale? Isn't it true wherever it is used it requires huge backup from conventional sources? Hydro only provides around 8% of our power I think you will find (you need suitable rivers/ rainfall).

The most promising power sources, of nuclear and clean coal

Geothermal is more promising than clean coal. It will likely be far cheaper and is far further along in development. It may even get up and running faster than we could set up a nuclear system.

You need suitable rock formations don't you? These aren't always near cities. The geothermal set ups I have heard about are quite modest in size and power output. One advantage of clean coal is the possibility of retrofitting existing power stations. There are billions of dollars tied up in these and governments are going to be reluctant to scrap and replace them.

will require big capital outlays - and for this to happen it is best to keep the economy strong

Again, the economy is best served by first choosing the cheapest options for emissions reductions, not trying to prop up the energy sector so we don't have to change our electricity consumption patters.


Mandating nuclear or clean coal will increase the price of electricity more, and harm the economy more, than the pricing mechanims necessary to achieve the same level of emissions reductions through the cheaper options.

Furthermore, instead of the price icnrease going into government revenue and funding income tax cuts or something else, it will be wasted on expensive unnecessary infrastructure.

Defeats the purpose doesn't it - taxing fuel and then giving the mony back in tax cuts! Whats to stop people just using the money to offset the energy costs. Whats to stop them using the money they save on driving their car less on jet fuel for an overseas/ interstate holiday?

That's why there is an almost universal consensus among economists in favour of pricing mechanisms.

Oh no - not another consensus!

freediver wrote on Jun 4^th, 2008 at 8:27pm:


Here's a few experts who would seem to disagree FD:

http://www.thenewcity.info/april_2007_editorial.htm

Err in haste, repent at leisure


Leaving aside the patent flaws of ET, the more immediate question is whether Australia should contemplate ‘early action’ at all. By far the most thorough, balanced and objective submission to the Prime Minister’s task group was from the Productivity Commission, which, of course, has no vested interest in the outcome. Refreshingly, the commission’s starting point is that unilateral action by Australia will have no impact on climate realities. This compares favourably with the Business Council’s lightweight contribution containing no such acknowledgement.

The commission proceeds to weigh up a series of possible rationales for early action in any event, namely avoiding climate change, meeting the Kyoto target, being a good world ‘citizen’ and influencing others, reducing investment uncertainty, and facilitating the transition to a lower emissions economy. After sifting through the evidence, the commission concludes that only the last of these justifies early action. And its enthusiasm for this rationale is lukewarm at best. However, the commission’s reasoning ultimately suffers from circularity, in the sense that transition to a future international regime warrants early action, but that depends on the regime: ‘Assessing this potential requires, among other things, judgements about the likely timing and make-up of an international regime.’ In short, the submission contains little if any endorsement of early action.

On a more general level, the commission pours cold water on the underlying assumptions of the Stern Review. The commission calls Sir Nicholas Stern’s particular view about aversion to risk and the low discount rates he employs into doubt, thus joining the growing body of literature questioning Stern’s assertion that an immediate and far-reaching response to climate change is necessary on economic as well as scientific grounds.

The hard reality is this: unilateral action would be pointless, and a multilateral scheme spanning nations and continents at varying stages of economic development, with different political cultures and competing strategic interests, is a pipedream.

Cui bono?

So why are our leaders about to drop a NETS on us?

The Business Council is nervous about the paralysing impact on investment of continuing speculation about a carbon tax or NETS, and would rather see the whole thing settled, even at cost to some of its members. To a lesser extent, it’s about public relations imperatives embodied in the notion of ‘corporate social responsibility’. For its part, Treasury is rightly concerned about economic inefficiencies produced by the mish-mash of federal and state-based abatement measures like the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target (MRET), Generator Efficiency Standards, NSW Greenhouse Gas Reduction Scheme, the Queensland 13 per cent gas scheme and others. Treasury is keen to sweep them all aside to level the national playing field.

Then there are the progressive ideologues, many of them academics, journalists and commentators, and most environmentalists, who campaign to transform social values as they relate to economic activity. For them, NETS is a chance to throw a progressive blanket over the economy. Hot on their heels is the new class of eco-hustlers, the carbon traders and analysts, carbon credit dealers, renewable energy developers and green designers, all clambering aboard NETS to make a buck. They enjoy access to the media on the pretext that they are performing a community service. On some days the Sydney Morning Herald reads like a promotional brochure for these interests.

While many environmentalists argue for NETS on the ground that Australia’s exclusion from carbon trading is costing us billions of dollars, a lucrative market for commodity traders, if achieved, doesn’t necessarily translate into emission reductions. Moreover, if unchecked, this green revolution will, on a significant scale, displace income earning prospects away from investors, proprietors and workers, mostly semi-skilled or unskilled blue-collar workers engaged in fossil fuel related industries, towards well-heeled groups like the eco-hustlers. The Productivity Commission cites ABARE research estimating that if we took independent climate action, even in conjunction with global action, by 2050 our coal and iron/steel industries will be respectively 32 percent and 53 per cent smaller than otherwise. In contrast, ‘services’ will only be 6 per cent smaller. Is this a desirable social outcome?

Whether climate change can be addressed without resort to ET is a big subject for another occasion. Even most ET fans accept that without heavy investment in technological innovation, ET alone is not sufficient. They just think a ‘price signal’ is necessary to stimulate this investment. But if ET proves to be a white elephant, technological innovation is all we have. More attention should be devoted to the option of clean technologies, like carbon capture and storage (CCS), as a stand alone response, mandated by governments according to a mutually agreed timetable.