Australian Politics Forum - Emission Reduction Targets of developing economies

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Emission Reduction Targets of developing economies
Reply #15 - Dec 17^th, 2009 at 7:05pm

Paella wrote on Dec 17^th, 2009 at 6:07pm:

We need to cut the planet’s carbon emissions, and quickly. It doesn’t make any difference where we cut them, as a ton of carbon emitted in Bangladesh or Uzbekistan goes into the same atmosphere that we breathe in Germany, the UK or Australia. So let’s all just act like grownups and agree to cut our emissions and share the cost of doing so equitably.

Spoken like a 14 year old.

Back to top

IP Logged

aikmann4

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 2093
canberra

Re: Emission Reduction Targets of developing economies
Reply #16 - Dec 18^th, 2009 at 12:09am

I would still like to know how we're actually going to cut our emissions. You hear a lot coming from Muso, etc. about how we need to cut such and such in order to avert imminent obliteration, but you almost never hear HOW. I would like to know what we're actually going to do; and whether or not it's going to render us all bankrupt.

Back to top

IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: Emission Reduction Targets of developing economies Reply #17 - Dec 18^th, 2009 at 12:11pm By changing to renewable energy sources for one. I'll post a more detailed response in the stcky section.
Back to top	1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Emission Reduction Targets of developing economies
Reply #18 - Dec 18^th, 2009 at 12:19pm

Soren wrote on Dec 17^th, 2009 at 7:01pm:

muso wrote on Dec 17^th, 2009 at 8:39am:

The weak will die- possibly as much as a billion people. It's sad, but it is going to happen regardless of how much money we waste on them.

Muso, you are talking like an apocalyptic nutter, like the General Turgidson of warmerists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgyjlqhiTV8

Mate,

It's your position that's looney tunes here, not mine. I'm not the one who is siding with a bunch of denialists who can't even agree on a single point, except business as usual.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Emission Reduction Targets of developing economies
Reply #19 - Dec 18^th, 2009 at 2:18pm

Soren wrote on Dec 17^th, 2009 at 7:05pm:

Paella wrote on Dec 17^th, 2009 at 6:07pm:

We need to cut the planet’s carbon emissions, and quickly. It doesn’t make any difference where we cut them, as a ton of carbon emitted in Bangladesh or Uzbekistan goes into the same atmosphere that we breathe in Germany, the UK or Australia. So let’s all just act like grownups and agree to cut our emissions and share the cost of doing so equitably.

Spoken like a 14 year old.

Much as I hate to agree with you Soren, I've been to quite a number of these poorer countries, and quite frankly I don't trust them, with very few exceptions.

I can understand China or perhaps India being able to make a difference, but not Uzhbekistan or Guinea.

Paella, I agree that it doesn't matter where you cut emissions. It's the question of whether we'll cut emissions at all with that strategy.

I remember having a very interesting conversation in French with a Guinean customs official. He told me that my Australian Passport was a forgery. He said that I would need supporting documentation to allow me out of the country. His original fee was $US100. I managed to get it down to $US20 by a process of bargaining and some humour, but I had to throw in some stickers and some nice colourful pens that he liked.

I have long come to the conclusion that spending any money or supporting any projects in such countries is futile. If our future depends on investment in countries like that, then all I can say is that we're doomed.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Dec 18^th, 2009 at 2:26pm by muso »

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Paella

Senior Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 290

Re: Emission Reduction Targets of developing economies
Reply #20 - Dec 19^th, 2009 at 9:01am

Unlike most topics in this area, the issue of investment in developing economies, and why it is in everyone's best interests, is pretty simple. Let me use an example:

Suppose Uzbekistan is undertaking a project to build a 500MW coal fired power station. Now because it is poor it will build a cheap power station that is not very efficient. It will also run on dirty brown coal, because it's cheaper. The carbon intensity of this power station would probably be in the range of 1200-1500 t/GWh (That's the number of tons of carbon that goes into the atmosphere for every gigawatt hour of electricity generated).

Another country, say Australia, could approach Ukbekistan and say, "we'll build you a super efficient gas fired power station. We'll also provide a grant to build the infrastructure to pipe the gas from Russia, and we'll back it up with an ongoing aid package so you can afford the gas, which is more expensive than brown coal." The carbon intensity of the new project is 450t/GWh, and the cost of this project is USD $1 billion.

The new project will deliver about 4 million less tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere per year than the Uzbeki project. But because Australia has brought about the reduction, the carbon credits are assigned to Australia.

Now there is also a project in Australia that the government could invest in, but the marginal cost of achieving the same emissions reductions (over and above the base cost of building the standard power station) will cost USD $12 billion. Why would we pay $12 billion for something we can get by investing Overseas for $1 billion? Especially when Australia is going to get its base generation capacity anyway, at the same cost, regardless of which option is pursued?

As long as the government of the project's host nation is stable enough to secure the emissions reductions, and the governments of most developing ecomonies are, it's a no brainer, isn't it?

Btw, this scenario is simplified, but it is realistic.

Back to top

IP Logged

Paella

Senior Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 290

Re: Emission Reduction Targets of developing economies
Reply #21 - Dec 19^th, 2009 at 3:22pm

The previous three posts are in the wrong thread. I think they were meant for "The Great Carbon Con". In the interests of getting things back on topic I will repost my last ...

Paella wrote on Dec 19^th, 2009 at 9:01am:

Unlike most topics in this area, the issue of investment in developing economies, and why it is in everyone's best interests, is pretty simple. Let me use an example:

Suppose Uzbekistan is undertaking a project to build a 500MW coal fired power station. Now because it is poor it will build a cheap power station that is not very efficient. It will also run on dirty brown coal, because it's cheaper. The carbon intensity of this power station would probably be in the range of 1200-1500 t/GWh (That's the number of tons of carbon that goes into the atmosphere for every gigawatt hour of electricity generated).

Another country, say Australia, could approach Ukbekistan and say, "we'll build you a super efficient gas fired power station. We'll also provide a grant to build the infrastructure to pipe the gas from Russia, and we'll back it up with an ongoing aid package so you can afford the gas, which is more expensive than brown coal." The carbon intensity of the new project is 450t/GWh, and the cost of this project is USD $1 billion.

The new project will deliver about 4 million less tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere per year than the Uzbeki project. But because Australia has brought about the reduction, the carbon credits are assigned to Australia.

Now there is also a project in Australia that the government could invest in, but the marginal cost of achieving the same emissions reductions (over and above the base cost of building the standard power station) will cost USD $12 billion. Why would we pay $12 billion for something we can get by investing Overseas for $1 billion? Especially when Australia is going to get its base generation capacity anyway, at the same cost, regardless of which option is pursued?

As long as the government of the project's host nation is stable enough to secure the emissions reductions, and the governments of most developing ecomonies are, it's a no brainer, isn't it?

Btw, this scenario is simplified, but it is realistic.

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Emission Reduction Targets of developing economies
Reply #22 - Dec 19^th, 2009 at 4:24pm

Paella wrote on Dec 19^th, 2009 at 3:22pm:

The previous three posts are in the wrong thread. I think they were meant for "The Great Carbon Con". In the interests of getting things back on topic I will repost my last ...

I agree. I have moved them.

I can see how it is intended to work, but I doubt if it would actually work that way. The problem will be that of policing the subsidies to ensure that they didn't fall into the wrong hands.

The only way such projects even get off the ground in most African countries is if a richer country steps in and manages the entire process. Uzhbekistan might be different.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Dec 19^th, 2009 at 4:32pm by muso »

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

mozzaok

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 6741
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Emission Reduction Targets of developing economies
Reply #23 - Dec 19^th, 2009 at 4:49pm

It is a major headache, that so many of these countries are so poor, that corruption is the primary industry, and even though the plan Paella spoke of, makes perfect sense on paper, seeing it translated into real action is another thing altogether, and that is why we need to concentrate firstly on the developed countries, which will generate the technoloical advances in clean fuel tech, which can then be adopted by others down the track.

Back to top

OOPS!!! My Karma, ran over your Dogma!

IP Logged

Soren Gold Member Offline Posts: 25654 Gender:	Re: Emission Reduction Targets of developing economies Reply #24 - Dec 19^th, 2009 at 6:33pm muso wrote on Dec 19^th, 2009 at 4:16pm: Off-Topic replies have been moved to this Topic. Is that the secret garden? I can't access it via the link.
Back to top	IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Emission Reduction Targets of developing economies
Reply #25 - Dec 19^th, 2009 at 7:51pm

I consolidated the responses into two threads - one for climate denial and the other for developing economies. I hope I didn't delete anything.

Basically how it will work in practice is that now that there is money available, new power station programs will start coming out of the woodwork in some of these developing-(the term non-developing is more accurate) countries. They will be required to produce some local money, but that will dry up very quickly and we'll end up with unfinished programs.

I've seen plenty of unfinished buildings in Africa. They start them and never finish them. There is no line of credit available in most African countries, so they have to turn to the West for everything.

So basically the money will be used to fund new renewable power stations to replace hypothetical coal-fired power stations instead of building renewable power stations in Australia.

This will achieve nothing.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Dec 20^th, 2009 at 10:33am by muso »

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Emission Reduction Targets of developing economies
Reply #26 - Dec 20^th, 2009 at 10:28am

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26507801-952,00.html

Quote:

Chief negotiator for the G77 group of 130 developing countries, Sudan's Lumumba Di-Aping, said: "Gross violations have been committed today against the poor.

Let's look at electricity generation alone:

Last year, Sudan had a capacity of 500MW for Oil fired power generation and about the same in hydroelectric power generation.

Last year, Australia had roughly 50 GW (50,000 MW) of generating capacity, and in the scheme of things, we are small-fry if we take a global capacity of 5000 GW.

Why was Sudan even represented at Copenhagen? They are insignificant in the scheme of things. Apart from that, I'd be very wary of sending any money to Sudan given their history of unrest.

I remember landing at Accra once and getting a 'porter' to carry my luggage. He stopped to talk to somebody and I signalled for another 'porter' to take over, because my sense of urgency transcended the Ghanaian concept of the word. I tipped the second porter 5000 Cedis (before re-denomination), which at the time was about $2. I looked in the rear mirror to see the first porter fighting (real fisticuffs) with the second porter.

That was the benefit that a mere 5000 Cedis could have on a very stable African country. Just think of the benefit a larger sum could have in Sudan.

My response to Lumumba is 'bugger the poor, this is about survival'

Back to top

« Last Edit: Dec 20^th, 2009 at 10:39am by muso »

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Paella

Senior Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 290

Re: Emission Reduction Targets of developing economies
Reply #27 - Dec 20^th, 2009 at 11:43am

muso wrote on Dec 19^th, 2009 at 7:51pm:

Basically how it will work in practice is that now that there is money available, new power station programs will start coming out
So basically the money will be used to fund new renewable power stations to replace hypothetical coal-fired power stations instead of building renewable power stations in Australia.

This will achieve nothing.

I'm not following the logic here. The sponsoring country (or company) OWNS the project. Why would they abandoned it before it starts producing carbon reduction credits? That would be irrational behavior indeed.

Obviously sponsors need to take care with regards to the political stability of the host nation, and in unstable countries the returns will not compensate for the risk, so they will not invest there.

The declaration that investment in developing economies would achieve nothing is akin to claiming that the projects delivered under the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism has achieved nothing. Now whilst I agree that the CDM could have delivered MORE than it has, to say it has achieved nothing is a bit of a stretch.

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Emission Reduction Targets of developing economies
Reply #28 - Dec 20^th, 2009 at 1:08pm

Paella wrote on Dec 20^th, 2009 at 11:43am:

I'm not following the logic here. The sponsoring country (or company) OWNS the project. Why would they abandoned it before it starts producing carbon reduction credits? That would be irrational behavior indeed.

Originally you gave the example of the host country building an inefficient power station. Presumably the money that would have gone towards building the inefficient power station should go towards the new power station.

As I understand it, the financial support from the sponsoring country would not extend to the total cost of the new renewable power station - just the difference between the costs. Now if the sponsoring country would provide the whole cost, then it's a similar result, but at least it would get built.

The net result of this will be to build a large number of power stations that would not have been built in the first place. It's basically not having any impact on greenhouse gas emissions, except during the construction phase - and that would be a net positive emission.

Let's examine the with and without scenarios:

No subsidy - no power station gets built - zero carbon emissions.

With a subsidy, there would be the carbon emissions associated with construction.

Therefore, the net result of the subsidy is carbon positive.

The money should have been spent for renewable projects in developed nations rather than non-developing nations.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Paella

Senior Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 290

Re: Emission Reduction Targets of developing economies
Reply #29 - Dec 21^st, 2009 at 5:38pm

I don't think it is too controversial to point out that developing economies need more power stations! Economic development has to be fuelled by something, just like ours has been.

If power stations are built that would not otherwise have been built, this is a GOOD thing. It's good for the developing economy, and good for the task of reducing emissions on an equitable basis. In fact, it is exactly how the "contract and converge" policy is supposed to work.

Once our global community agrees to a uniform amount of CO2 emissions per person per annum, then countries who are above that mark will move down to that mark. Countries who are below that mark will be allowed to move UP to that mark. This means that some developing economies will be able to increase their emissions. Access to cheap fuel for power stations is hence limited to those economies who have not yet received the same benefit that we have received. Of course, they will never be able to receive the same amount of benefit that we have already realised, that would lead to catastrophic warming, so we must compensate these economies in other ways, such as by funding low emission and renewable energy generation. We must compensate these economies because we have stolen their atmosphere and applied it to the development of our own economy.

Indeed we should be doing everything we can to reduce emissions by replacing our own coal and gas fired power stations with renewable energy, but we would be crazy to leave the low hanging fruit on the tree as a result! The cheapest emissions reductions available are in developing economies. Every molecule of GHG we keep out of the atmosphere from a developing economy is of the same benefit as a molecule from our own economy. But it is CHEAPER to reduce the emissions of a developing economy than it is to reduce the emissions of a developed economy.

Back to top

IP Logged