I recently rang my electricity company to discuss GreenPower. I knew I wanted 100% GreenPower but I didn’t want it now. I wanted it in January 2010. Right now, I want to do my bit to keep the government’s 2009 GreenPower baseline as low as possible – so my efforts towards emissions reductions really count.

You can take your wind farm…

‘Give me the dirtiest coal electricity you have,’ I said to the operator.

I explained that under the government’s proposed emissions trading scheme, me paying extra for GreenPower wouldn’t actually reduce Australia’s carbon emissions – beyond what would happen if I didn’t take any action at all.

But it would from 2010 - so I didn’t want to buy it until then.

The operator replied tersely, ‘Victoria, I can guarantee that our GreenPower is fully accredited and it does reduce Australia’s carbon emissions.’

The call left me with 100% dirty electricity and lingering questions over why GreenPower energy retailers were still guaranteeing emissions reductions even when they weren’t able to demonstrate it.

We all cheered when Kevin Rudd committed to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on 3rd December 2007, but implications of ratification means that any current action taken voluntarily by consumers or business to reduce carbon emissions - like purchasing GreenPower - is in vain.

Last year the ACCC released new guidelines - Carbon Claims and the Trade Practices Act – in response to a proliferation of misleading carbon claims. The guidelines state that misleading carbon claim occurs when an energy retailer can not demonstrate that the emissions reduction is ‘additional’ to what would normally happen, or ‘business-as-usual’.

By ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, the government guaranteed Australia would achieve a 108% emissions reduction target on 1990 levels by 2012. If we fail to meet this target domestically, the government will purchase additional credits internationally. Either way – we will achieve 108%. This essentially means that all present voluntary action, like GreenPower, is accounted for as ‘business-as-usual’.

The government has tried to overcome this by making GreenPower additional to emission reduction targets under the CPRS using 2009 GreenPower sales as the baseline. But what about the 984,024 GreenPower customers that already pay a premium for GreenPower, without receiving any personal benefit other than knowing they are supporting renewable energy and thinking that they are reducing Australia’s greenhouse emissions?

Since we committed to ratifying the protocol over 18 months ago, GreenPower, a government-accredited program guaranteeing renewable energy, has done remarkably well. It has increased its customer base by 243,144 customers, or a third – not bad for tough times. But are GreenPower retailers really being honest with their customers?

I suspect the government-run GreenPower has known about this misleading carbon claim issue for a while but only this week have they contacted the retailers of GreenPower products to advise of a new communications strategy, the language of which is designed to keep you guessing:

The tag line:
GreenPower. A simple switch for you, significant results for our environment.

Has been replaced with:
GreenPower. A simple switch for you, renewable energy for our future.

Meaning:
You will continue to support renewable energy, but you will no longer achieve positive changes for the environment…

The tag line:
GreenPower. You have the power to make a real difference.

Has been replaced with:
GreenPower. You have the power to choose.

Meaning:
You will no longer make a difference, but you will have a choice to not make a difference…

And energy retailers have been struggling to get their marketing pitch right. Many GreenPower retailers are misleading hundreds of thousands of households and that’s not okay, so far as CHOICE is concerned.

Of course all this tricky marketing-speak would be irrelevant if the federal government were to remove its ridiculous 2009 baseline and made sure that every current and future GreenPower purchase is additional to Australia’s mandatory emissions reduction target – which is exactly what nearly a million households want when they choose GreenPower.

Most commented

18 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Rationalist says:

      06:39am | 05/08/09

      Anyone who does not embrace the wonders of coal fired electricity is a Labor man and hence a socialist and very dangerous man.

      Goddamn commiehippies.

    • Liz says:

      08:32am | 05/08/09

      Isn’t this the biggest con of all time? the consumers and householders pay extra so business and industry can continue their axtivities? Hope they’ve worked out how to get the green electicity down the lines by 2010!

    • Chris says:

      09:23am | 05/08/09

      Maybe they will paint all the poles and power lines green and then market it as “green energy”.

    • pete says:

      09:28am | 05/08/09

      ALP + real emmission targets = much ado about nothing

      This has been Rudd’s biggest miscalculation and failing,  Blind Freddy can see it was a sell out to mining and union interests.  This is also what will hurt him next election, regardless of new promises, which no one will believe now.  I predict a lot more Greens in parliament in both upper and lower houses.  Who knows, maybe it’s their turn to “keep the bastards honest”

    • watty says:

      10:24am | 05/08/09

      This fraud is not only being run in Australia.

      Some months ago SKY U.K announced that they were running on 100% “grenn power” supplied by Scottish Hydro.

      Having done busines with S.H in the eighties I contacted them and they informed me that ,as from day one, their generated electricity went onto the Main Grid and could not be separated from the nuclear coal oil or gas generated electricity.

      It’s not only the windmills that spin spin spin

    • Wayne says:

      10:43am | 05/08/09

      Yeah this green power being flogged is pretty lame. It’s a game with numbers, not actual electrons. The power doesn’t cut down when the wind blows slow on turbines, or the sun dissapears at night or on cloudy days….
      And other “renwables” are basically still burning stuff… just different stuff, wherever it comes from.
      Only nuclear power is 100% guarranteed, zero emission baseload poers. It’s inevitable this country will have to use it one day, IF we serious about big, genuine cuts on emissions. The oongy-boongy voodoo cult that it’s bad is decades out of date now…  and there’s good reason Australia should take and store it’s waste. Would wipe billions off our horrible trade deficit, we have endless tracks of wasteland where it could be put with no risk at all…
      I look forward with amusement to the howls of panic… grin

    • Duanne Dibley says:

      12:08pm | 05/08/09

      Wayne,
      You can’t really say nuclear is zero emission, it may not emit carbon but it does have that nasty nuclear byproduct that has to be dealt with at some point. There’s also that meltdown factor, unlikely but needs to be considered, it does happen. If a traditional generator blows up or fails you just get a lot more carbon in the atmosphere or the blades stop turning or the water escapes from the dam, if a nuclear site melts down…well you get glow in the dark cabbages for 100’s of k’s downwind for many years after.

    • Phil says:

      12:18pm | 05/08/09

      Waiting until 2010 to switch to green power in order to “keep the government’s 2009 GreenPower baseline as low as possible”?  Seriously?

      By that argument, people should try to gain weight in order to increase their chances of being selected as a contestant on The Biggest Loser.

      Get that baseline way up, so the future losses look more impressive.

      Your maths is sound, but your science is terrible.

    • Craig says:

      12:33pm | 05/08/09

      @ Wayne:

      Nuclear power is not renewable.  Look it up.  Don’t worry about the waste.  Concern yourself about where we are going to get the quality uranium from in 50 years time - even less than that if the entire world takes up the nuclear cause. 

      This is not even to mention the mass amounts of traditional fossil fuel power used to get the stuff out of the ground and ready for the reactor.

    • Steve B says:

      02:37pm | 05/08/09

      @Wayne, nuclear power will only be considered as emmissions free when nuclear power plants start growing on trees, until then, not only is there a huge energy cost involved in building the plant, there is also the issue of processing uranium ore into usable fuel and storing the waste afterwards.

      You might also like to consider that because it costs about 6 times more to decommission a nuclear plant than it does to build it, they’re not even a particularly attractive option economically.

    • Lex says:

      02:57pm | 05/08/09

      The source for nuclear power is easy found here in Aus, as Australia has over 70% or the worlds uranium, which is the fuel for nuclear power.
      what we have to do for carbon emmissions is this, the worlds biggest resevoir for carbon emissions is the ocean. the more carbon is in the air, the more the polar ice will melt, increasing the size of the ocean, which means it can absorb more carbon. its a self-fixing problem really

    • davewilson says:

      08:54pm | 05/08/09

      @wayne & @lex the only places nuclear are economic options is where nuclear reactors are heavily gov subsidised. We already heavily ‘subsidise’ the coal industry with tax dollars for unknown reasons.  Add to this ‘green power’ and carbon taxes - I smell extra corporate scams. Be informed about your choices or be a chump. Read the piece again.

    • Richard says:

      07:47am | 06/08/09

      well put Victoria. Unfortunately the government seems more committed to appearing to solve the problem than actually solving the problem. Keep up the scrutiny.

      The next fight is much broader than GreenPower though - the same argument about voluntary acrion applies to ads suggesting that a prius or a hot water system can ‘lower emissions’...lots of work for the ACCC coming up i fear

    • Cat says:

      10:54pm | 06/08/09

      I think the interesting thing about the emission target scheme is that it’s going to rip 20 billion dollars per year for at least 4 years from our wallets. That’s about $1000 per person (man,woman,child) per year. Any ideas on where it’s going to? Some may pay more than others obviously. When we already have elderly people reluctant to warm themselves in winter and cool themselves in summer because of the current (ha-ha!) cost of power, what are they going to do? I’ve thought about green energy, but if I’m paying extra for it and not actually getting it, what’s the point? ps I’m not convinced on climate change being caused by us anyway- why would the mars icecaps be melting otherwise?

    • Harvey Brack says:

      05:30pm | 07/08/09

      Oh yes , once again we rightwingnaziracists can see it coming - we’ll all be rooned said bob brown. As if. Let’s just get on with the job of finding food, clothing and shelter for everyone and if the climate changes well the clothes will get either thinner or thicker and the houses wont need heating or aircon anymore. Bill and Kev the flowerpot men have absolutely no idea - vote them out asap. we are humans and we adapt to whatever. keep bob and kev out of it. climate changes, get over it.

    • Geoff Piddington says:

      06:40pm | 27/09/09

      The requirement for energy in any form is neccessary to society whether it be a cave dweller or an astronaut.  The problem is, there is to many people drawing energy green or other and no matter what is done, the population will continue to grow as will the demand for energy.  The answer, reduce the demand (people) and the remainder can pollute to their hearts content.  Will it happen - not on your neddy.  We need an act of god (that way no one is to blame) to enable the final solution.

    • Gavin Cerini says:

      07:47am | 26/10/09

      I WANT OUR CLIMATE BACK, not just a CO2 halt at 350ppm, but right back to 280ppm. The remnant brolga (one of the world`s 16 crane species) population in Victoria is about 700, and since 1996 there has been little successful nesting due to continued drought. Brolgas prefer large wetlands 250mm deep to nest in, but with permanent drought the nesting wetlands are dry or too low. Instead some pairs have been attempting to nest in the edges of farm dams/ponds and in one case in a roadside puddle about 40 metres long, but these sites leave the eggs and chicks open to greater predation and disturbance. The main summer flocking site has moved south because the wetlands at the old site are dry. With one or two more such moves the brolgas will be at the Southern Ocean. Where do they go then?
      Recruitment to this population is about 5% per year, compared with 15% in the northern Australian brolga population. Victorian brolgas are ageing and most will soon be too old to breed. The few young breeding birds will not be able to maintain the population as the older birds die off.
      Can anyone, climate change deniers included, tell us how to avoid not just this population crash, but a human one as well?  Email me. gavin.cerini@gmail.com

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

David Penberthy

@KevCorduroy @SallyHitchiner it's a great idea I doubt he'd go for it though far too laid back

ToryShepherd

. @mcguiremi is journo of the year! #samediaawards

ToryShepherd

.@mariamosco @msmarto Super Smarto. And Shirley Stott Despoja into the Hall of Fame #samediaawards

ToryShepherd

Best print journo to @mcguiremi woot! #samediaawards

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter