Carbon confusion over political emissions

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

by Tory Shepherd

110
Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

by Anthony Sharwood

210
There’s no one Thomson won’t burn to save his skin

by Tory Maguire

310
Animal experiments won’t cure me from cancer

by Helen Marston

410
If you want to get promoted, laugh at the boss’s jokes

by Kate Southam

510
Need someone to do your dirty work? Try God.

by Tory Shepherd

610
Gina Rinehart’s the least interesting thing on this list

by Lucy Kippist

710
I’ve rocked out of my generation’s la-la-loop

by Jason Tin

810
Punch on: Open thread 24/05/2012

by Daniel Piotrowski

910
If sports movies have taught us anything, NSW will win

by Anthony Sharwood

1010

by Marcus Kuczynski

27 Jul 05:20am

Must Reads

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

Filed under: Carbon Trading, Climate Change, Kevin Rudd, Malcolm Turnbull, Politics

7 comments

Everybody wants to save the world in some way. But more often than not the politics of salvation get in the way of achieving this.

Talking until they're green in the face. Illustration: Jon Kudelka.

That appears to be the curse that has befallen the Federal Government’s attempt to introduce an emissions trading scheme.

While the Government and Opposition engage in a power play over the details of an ETS and their own face-saving attempts, they have left the electorate fumbling to grasp what it will mean for the average punter.

Despite the political energy that has gone into the debate, the ETS has not been the hottest topic among the chatter on online news forums in the past week or so.

It would seem the complexities of such a scheme and lack of solid details have raised a boredom barrier among many people.

Mr and Ms Public want to know how any carbon reduction scheme will impact on them directly. And this is still not entirely clear.

The lack of coherence on a climate change strategy within the Coalition has not helped the electorate to understand whether this is a policy worth supporting.

Commenting on abc.net.au, reader Renn thought the Coalition were in a no-win situation whether they supported an ETS or not. “They are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. The Coalition mustn’t prostitute their policies. Don’t worry about a double dissolution. The ALP will be seen to be chicken if they call an early election and would only do so while their popularity is high to ensure being returned. But they might be in for a surprise.”

But while the ETS proved to be a dry topic of debate, raising the prospects of nuclear and other alternative sources of energy elicited an immediate uptick in interest.

Resources Minister Martin Ferguson’s statement late last week that solar and wind energy were not viable based on current technology, and that nuclear, gas and coal-fired energy could not be ignored, drew qualified support from many online comments.

Couriermail.com.au reader, Alf of Carindale, called for a trade-off on the ETS. “Seventy per cent of Australia’s carbon emissions are from carbon-fired power generation. If Rudd was serious about reducing CO2, nuclear power is the answer. But then, of course, no ETS tax.”

Among other comments also focusing on the nuclear debate, JS wrote on news.com.au: “Even if there was grid-connected solar power system on every home in Australia, there would still be a significant energy deficit that would have to be made up from other sources. The technology just isn’t available at the moment to create the amount of base load power required from renewable sources. Nuclear power shouldn’t be viewed as the solution though. It should be viewed as a bridge to get us all to the time where adequate renewable energy technology and infrastructure is available.”

RG of Sydney added: “I don’t see why it has to be one or the other. Make as much of solar as possible and supplement with nuclear as needed. Technology needs to look at better electricity storage using hydrogen cells, more efficient solar cells, and ways in which the nuclear waste can best be made safer.”

But Silent Minority of Bull Creek wrote on Perth Now: “If the Government was prepared to throw as much money at renewable energy as they do at the uranium industry, then we absolutely could avoid going down this path of nuclear power.”

Vivienne Ortega of Heidelberg Heights was less than enthusiastic about the legacy of more uranium mining in a comment to abc.net.au: “The environmental impacts of uranium mining will be left to the next generation, and it may be too late then Uranium mining will bring in mega-dollars, and this is the only thing that our leaders understand - short-term gains at the expense of the environment and indigenous land rights.”

Regardless of whether the Government and Opposition can reach a final consensus on the ETS, it seems the broader energy debate is not set to be switched off any time soon.

Share post:
Print page:
- Print Article

Most commented

427Australia, you have nothing to fear but fear itself

375There's no one Thomson won't burn to save his skin

313Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking

304Animal experiments won't cure me from cancer

262Who murdered the Arts degree?

246A big day for Thomson, who thus far is guilty of nothing...

231South Australia. It's the middle bottom bit.

231Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia...

7 comments

Show oldest | newest first

- Marah Lous says:
  
  11:08am | 16/03/11
  
  This is really something that my friends will gladly google on.
  
  Reply
- GM says:
  
  10:44pm | 05/08/09
  
  When are we going to stop expecting our politicians to have the solution to every problem we may face as a society? Politicians are professional egocentric procrastinators and will only move on an idea if it is guaranteed to keep them in favour. We as a society need to expect to loose something in order to counteract the century or so of gain we have had from taking our environment in vain. The industrial revolution is by no way over, we need to keep the momentum up or we face losing the planet. I believe we are on the brink of discovering technologies that will bring us back to some sort of harmony with our environment. For us to survive in such great numbers of population it is the only way. The choice is ours. We either decrease population worldwide or we seek technological enlightenment. Love it or loose it.
  
  Reply
- AllanL says:
  
  09:11am | 30/07/09
  
  Having watched Shai Agassi from Better Place on APac the other day I would suggest that people get ready for a explosion in the production of base load electricity.
  Better Place is proposing a network of electricity recharging stations for electric cars and trucks through out Australia and the world (
  Canberra city has already signed up).
  Better Place has suggested that it will be cheaper to run electric cars than liquid fuel cars and that sheer economics will move people to electric cars.
  This will transfer the emissions from liquid fuel cars to emissions from power stations as the energy to drive transport moves from one fuel to another.
  Agassi drew an analogy with the rapid take up of mobile phones.
  How long has it been that anyone has bought a land-line for phone communications?
  So the one certain thing is that there will be an explosion in the requirement of base load power produced by every method in the near term.
  So if you want to reduce carbon emissions from the increased levels of base load production of electricity, nuclear will need to be serious considered.
  
  Reply
- ANDIKA says:
  
  02:36pm | 27/07/09
  
  Re VivKay @ 856am
  
  So what’s your solution VivKay? Annihilate all livestock and then make all humans become vegans?
  I don’t think so.
  Its looney tune people like you and that other alarmist - Ms. Sandra Kanck form Sustainable Population Australia, that really exposes the dropkicks in the climate debate.
  
  Reply
- Matthew says:
  
  11:41am | 27/07/09
  
  Ignorance is bliss for the majority of the population. They hear Saint Kevin preach about the greatest moral challenge of our generation and get all warm and fuzzy thinking Australia is going to lead the world in this fight against the evils of carbon dioxide.
  
  What the population fails to grasp is that we ALL will pay for this madness. The warm and fuzzies come with a price - which most people have no idea about. The voted this ALP spin machine in, they are going to get the CPRS job destroyer.
  
  I am generally in support of sensible measures that make this country a better place for all. Though following the last federal election, I have changed my approach to such measures. The electorate showed its sheer naivety in voting in this spin machine ALP Ruddbot. I cant wait for the scheme to be passed into legislation. The electorate deserves everything it is about to get, huge increases in power bills, increases in the cost of food, fuel and everything else.
  
  I am safe in my own job, but to the tens of thousands whom will be out of employment as a direct result of the spin machine passing the CPRS, I have no sympathy whatsoever.
  
  Just remember ‘I am Kevin from Queensland and I am here to help’.
  
  Listening to this imbecile talking about how he understands the concerns of the electorate when it comes to fuel and grocery prices was just laughable.
  
  So Saint Kevin could feel the impact of $1.49 per litre of fuel could he? So Kevin does an EFTPOS transaction to pay for the fuel and the balance remaining in his account is about $60,000,000 - he knows what financial pressure is, what a load of BS. This man is fraud if ever I have seen one.
  
  A poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage
  And then is heard no more: it is a tale
  Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
  Signifying nothing.
  
  Reply
- VivKay says:
  
  08:56am | 27/07/09
  
  Al Gore also has been involved in raising cattle all his life! Livestock are responsible for at least 18% of global emissions, and methan is 23 times a more powerful atmospheric warmer than CO2. Also, livestock are responsible for much of the environmental damage and deforestation happening today, and wildlife habitat destruction. Forests are being destroyed to feed a growing world population, while the number of starving increases! So much hypocrisy exists, and Al Gore does not have the answers. The two big “elephants in the room” in facing climate change are population growth and the livestock industries, the topics that are usually met with a wall of silence!
  
  Reply
- eag says:
  
  08:40am | 27/07/09
  
  There would still be an energy deficit because industry and Mr and Mrs Public use too much power and need to learn how not to.Notice how nuclear power is creeping in to every discussion, initially introduced by the Howard Government.We will have nuclear power stations in time and the idea is being brought to us by stealth so we get used to it and begin to consider it ‘normal’ and therefore ok.
  Carbon trading is a big con.Al Gore lives in a mansion,travels by private plane but it’s ok because he owns a company that carbon trades.Isn’t it important to reduce emisssions, not to substitute and pay big bucks to do so? Wake up people!!
  
  Reply