What we still need to know about a carbon price

Richard says:

12:40pm | 10/09/10

You’re right about Wall Street Shane, but I don’t think that is a free market, more like a corrupt oligarchical intermingling of big business on Wall Street and big government in Washington ~ Government Sponsored Enterprise/Enterprise Sponsored Government.

Deng Xiaoping’s free market reforms in China actually opened the door to their astounding economic growth and success. The still have a loooong way to go, but some commentators I respect say that China actually has a free-er market than the US these days….

Shane From Melbourne says:

07:15pm | 09/09/10

Yep, I have faith in Wall Street to loot as much wealth from the U.S Treasury and U.S public as possible. Very efficient, but not good for the long term economic health of the United States…...
BTW China is doing far better than the United States but is hardly a free market….

dave says:

10:31pm | 10/09/10

acotrel . the topic is about carbon taxes not russian nuclear power stations

havent worked in an engineering based industry you think.mmm

I can tell you that the recycling industry is one of the biggest polluting industries in the world. it starts with one of the big mining companies mining the raw material to beging the manufacturing process for the tools , equipment and machinery used and required to reprocess garbage.
now lets say we have all our machinery parts assembled and we are ready to start recycling,but first,we have to remember the highly polluting industry that manufactured our fantastic new toy, what a nice industry.
now its time to flik the switch. oh no nothing happens. the smoke billowing coal fired power station hasn’t been hooked up to my fuse box yet giving my new toy the juicy electricity it loves to suck so much.before we try turning the machine on again, i think its best we turn on the 100 or so electricity consming dock lights so we can get a better look at our new toy in action. oh no we havent got any paper to recycle yet. what will we do.
we will get the mining industry to mine some more raw material to make hundreds of smoke billowing trucks( plus on going replacement parts ) to drive around at idle speed in congested traffic all day and collect recyclable rubbish.
mate to pretty much sum it up with out going into all the logistical system and the companies involved in the polluting manufacturing processes for everything we do and use in our daily lives.
sit down with a piece of paper and pick any item in your house and write down the full logistical process for pollution generation from raw material to consumer. i’ll give you the heads up. if you pick dunny roll it starts with the mining industry mining the raw material to send to japan to make the tools for the lumber jack to cut down the tree.
also dont forget all the office system for every company involved in your plan.
i can go on all day with logistics but at the end of the day,the volume of pollution that is generated from all the manufacturing processes for everything we have and do in life is at such a high level cant be avoided.we are a selfish greedy spiecies.
so when you finish your logistical plan of an item you have at home, apply a carbon tax to every industry involved in your finish plan and think to your self , how much will this push prices up. any item in your house with a full logistical break down from raw to consumer and every polluting industry involved. hears a thought,you better by a reem of paper.

acotrel says:

08:00am | 10/09/10

N -  Nuclear power ’ in it’s infancy’ at Chernobyl? Are you trying to tell us that Australian engineers are superior to Russian educated people? It’s pretty obvious you’ve never worked in an engineering based industry in Australia!

Amy says:

09:53am | 11/09/10

Uhhh Denizen.  Heard of Lucas Heights?  The Nuclear Reactor there has been running without significant incident for 62 years, 31kms from the Sydney CBD.

N says:

11:27am | 10/09/10

Denizen; It’s pretty safe to say when you draw the “Terrorist Threat” card, you’re clutching at straws in an arguement. There are over 400 nuclear power plants around the world, ZERO have been attacked by any group; terrorist or otherwise. Let’s say we have a group of “evil dooers” with enough explosive to expose a reactor core…. consider the distance from boundary fence in relation to the actual core and the amount of explosive required to crack it. It’s far more likely said “evil dooers” would roll up in a truck in the CBD and detonate it there.  It’s also infinitely more likely you’ll be hit by a bus than be subject to either scenario.

Happy to have a conversation about cost. How about we look at the cost to the nation of implementing another tax and its crippling effect on the economy and international investments? As opposed to using a fraction of the yellowcake we supply the rest of the world for our own needs, without another tax, providing a stronger and more agile economy? The idea that we sell nuclear fuel to other nations then fail to use it ourselves is akin to IBM or HP making computers but not using them!

Agree nuclear fallout last thousands of years, which is why the area around Womera is totally useless courtesy of British testing.  Chernobyl is the worst nuclear power disaster in history; yet they continued using the remaining reactors up until 2000.

Acotrel; Yes infancy; 2nd generation nuclear power plant as opposed to 4th generation we have now. I’m not comparing the talents of any nation here. It’s stupid to think that Aussie engineers would design their own reactor from scratch, rather find a nation with a pristine nuclear record and leverage their design. France would be the most obvious.

Denizen says:

10:01pm | 09/09/10

Hmmm… where have I heard those kinds of claims about safety and devastating events never happening again?

Err… Gulf of Mexico anyone?

No one can claim a 100% safety record and the problem with nukes is that if there is an event, the damage lasts for thousands of years.  And I haven’t even started on cost, time to build and security issues.

I doubt a terrorist group would ever try to blow up a wind farm.

N says:

05:27pm | 09/09/10

Denizen; Not at all, but similar to Three Mile Island, that was nuclear power in its infancy, we have moved along way in 25 years. While Chernobyl is an unquestionable tragedy, the outcome from both of these disasters was the implementation of safety measures so such events can never happen again.

I guess when you look at countries like Germany with 17 plants, UK with 19, Sweden with 10, Russia with 32; all with no accidents. Chernobyl was in the Ukraine (with 15 plants), before you jump up and down about Russia having no accidents. France has 58 plants with only a single minor accident (the only one in 30 years) where 3 workers entered a particle accelerator without protection; the executives were subsequently jailed. 

With today’s checks and balances, the fear of nuclear meltdown is totally unfounded and a specious argument.

Denizen says:

05:06pm | 09/09/10

Er… how about Chernobyl? Forget that one did we?

loxy says:

04:58pm | 09/09/10

“Orindary people are not preoccupied with worries about global warming”. I beg to differ Damian, in the 2007 election this was one of the top three concerns of the Australian people and a major reason why Howard (the climate change non-believer) lost by a landslide.

I am extremely worried about climate change and sick to death of governments talking about it but doing nothing.

True Believer says:

04:53pm | 09/09/10

Thats right Denizen, we have control and can do whatever we like and I cannot wait until I grow my own weed, inject anything I want and tax the hell out all those evil rich people!

Happy days my friend, happy days!!

Denizen says:

04:32pm | 09/09/10

How unusual for you rightwingers to read something and not understand it! LOL.

I did not claim that the Greens had control of parliament. I merely commented that TrueB’s argument didn’t make sense.

But anyway, here are the facts:

The Labor party nominally controls the Lower House with 76 seats.
The Labor party has 31 seats and the Greens 9 seats in the Senate, enough to form a majority.

That looks to me like the “left wing controls parliament” as TrueB so correctly put it.

But I’m sure you can spin those facts to fit your deluded view of the world.

Good luck with that!

TimB says:

01:27pm | 09/09/10

Denizen perhaps you need to check your definition of majority. The Greens picked up a 3.97% overall swing for a toal primary vote of 11.76%

Assuming we follow your logic that anyone voting Green wanted action on climate change, that works out to be a little over 1 in 9 people.

But hey don’t let facts get in the way of your sweeping lies.

David C says:

01:21pm | 09/09/10

yes and after all those “green jumpers” they still only got 10% of the vote , doesnt strike me as a consensus

Denizen says:

12:40pm | 09/09/10

Your argument doesn’t make sense.

First you say: “we have a “for your own good” ideal that we want put into place that lacks the support of the majority of the community”; then you say: ” now that we have left wing control of the Parliament”!

The fact that we have left wing control of the parliament, and that so many voters jumped from the ALP to the Greens shows quite clearly that the majority DO support action on climate change.

But please don’t let facts get in the way of a good rant!

Gregg says:

02:39am | 10/09/10

Kate, you need to get a grip on reality
1. Solar panels on new homes is fine but it is still only fringe power.
2. Hydro needs water that we do not always have an abundance of in the right places for even with current flooding and Queensland/outback flooding, all that water at low level is useless for hydro.
There’s the Snowy, Kiewa and Tassie systems already tying up what higher altitude water we do have and perhaps New England / Cairns tablelands being other possible locations but it means a lot of dam building and guess what the Greens do not like.
The technology for wind power is already far advanced in Europe as is Nuclear and no technology development is needed but wind also has its limitations as does solar for greater capacity power generation.

hs says:

06:36pm | 09/09/10

aah, speak for yourself, I LOVE windfarms, they are awesome.

Warwick says:

03:03pm | 09/09/10

True, we do not want to desecrate our environment. Monstrous windmills desecrate our environment. Furthermore, when the wind stops they produce no power. This means that all wind power sources need backup coal fired power stations. These stations will have to be continuously running, they cannot come online in twenty minutes, although the wind can stop in twenty minutes. So building windmills will simply desecrate our environment without resulting in less CO2 being emitted.

If a number of nuclear power stations are built they will supply energy at all times, when the wind has stopped and when clouds and nightfall block out the sun.

As well as that, the power will be so cheap that we can use it to desalinate sea water and pump it to the dry outback, and create millions of acres of productive farmland, forests and wildlife habitat.

This will be to the Snowy Mountains Scheme what Wilbur Wright’s biplane is to a jumbo jet.

loxy says:

05:03pm | 09/09/10

Andrew if everyone took the attitude you sprout i.e I’m not doing anything until the other countries do then no one would ever do anything. Personally I would be extremely proud to be part of the country that takes a stand and sets the standard in this area for all the other countries to follow!

Phil says:

10:43am | 09/09/10

I can tell you where the revenue is going, in to huge salaries, big bonuses and back to the government to be wasted on all manner of other silly things minority groups can come up with to “save the earth”

Helen says:

11:58am | 10/09/10

Greenpeace are the most biaised anti scientific organsation. I once worked for them, and when I wanted to be objective and report the results of a scientific study by one of the most esteemed academics in the field, that disagreed with their viewpoint, I was told in no uncertain terms not to publicise this research or I would be sacked. Further, most of the larger environmental organisations are multinational companies in their own right; and little different.

Freeman says:

09:37am | 10/09/10

Denzien,
You provide as ‘evidence’,  A Greenpeace conspiracy theory that says Exxon,  a company that stands to loose billions upon the introduction of an ETS, gave just 1.3 million to ‘denialist organisations’ who they can’t name. Do you seriously swallow this rubbish without question? Do you understand the difference between news and unqualified propaganda from an activist website?  Gotta laugh mate,  You only support my statement of lefties fighting imaginary battles. Yes I use google, But I also qualify the content I read before I accept it.

Denizen says:

12:26pm | 09/09/10

They are too gutless to come out and say anything under their own banner. Rather they pay so called “Think Tanks” and other organisations to do it for them. Try not to be too naive… there’s a good boy. I guess you don’t use “Google”?

Try this for starters: http://www.exxonsecrets.org

TimB says:

09:15am | 09/09/10

“Something that only the Greens or a complete idiot would contemplate.”

You say that like there’s a difference between the two .

Gregg says:

09:56pm | 12/09/10

@ ibast says
Your theory has a basic fallacy:
What a mining boom does is create investment by local funds and also brings in foreign capital to create a productive venture that brings in revenue, usually from sales of product abroad - the revenue, usually from sales of product abroad being the key feature and that aside from the royalties and taxation that can flow to governments.

Now sure there is various coal burning efficiency technolgy about and has been for decades, the stumbling block to implementation is that coal is abundant, the efficiencies to be gained are marginal and costs extremely high, reconstruction of the massive boilers and different turbines.
All that investment is not going to lead to income from abroad but will have to be paid for by taxpayers, a huge difference!
Also it is not so much ” Not only that, plants are being run into the ground in anticipation of future changes ” for anyone associated with the technical aspects of generation plant will know it is not just Australia that has a nominal life on power generation infrastructure of somewhere about the 30 year mark or it has been and that to some extent related to proximity of the coal field to the power station with some plants.
I say ” has been ” for in fact there are power stations here in Australia that have already undergone ” rebuilds ” , Hazelwood PS in Victorias LV being a prime example where upgrades were a feature even before it was sold off to a private consortium in the 90s, already being 30 years old then and now there is talk of coverting a couple of units to Gas.
A carbon trading system is not however going to be a stimulus to the Australian economy for all the cost flow on will just mean more people will have less disposable income.
The sense of massive efficiency upgrades for older plant is questionable when their working lives may be suspect to other factors and the real question that desperately needs to be addressed by governments is ” What should we be doing now about the new power stations that ought to be under construction already if not being planned for imminent start of construction “
In the most populous region of Australia, the south east, there has been significant upgrade during the nineties of state systems interconnection such that better management of available generating capacity to be online together with a few gas turbine plants has enabled putting off the need for new generating capacity to be developed on a larger scale.
As demand continues to grow and existing power stations age even further and become less reliable, the delay in action for new power larger power stations is becoming more critical and the longer nought is done the greater the probability of extensive periods of power shortages and blackouts will be.
Perhaps something that ought to be on peoples minds when negotiating with or voting for the Greens.
I winder whether any government has the conviction to seriously address the issues and not that the views are all necessarily correct, Siemens give a snapshot of sorts.
Somewhere a lot of money ought to be being allocated to rather than the NBN plan.
http://aunz.siemens.com/NewsCentre/2010/Pages/20100322_SiemensAnnouncesTechnologyBlueprinttoSolveAustraliasWaterandEnergyissuesby2030.aspx

n_dude says:

03:57pm | 10/09/10

Makes sense. Look at what has happened with cars. Ever since the price of oil went up, the car makers are falling over themselves to make more fuel efficient cars.

acotrel says:

07:42am | 10/09/10

Nuclear power ‘if done correctly’ would solve the problem? Some people have great faith in Australian engineers, most of whom are relatively inexperienced!  The costs of going nuclear would involve purchase of complete systems, including competent personnel.  They certainly don’t come out of our universities!

ibast says:

02:46pm | 09/09/10

A future without coal and nuclear is not going to happen within the next 3 generations if at all.  So yes, the Greens have fallen out of their tree on that one.

I should expand on my original proviso in “so long as it’s done right”.  What is absolutely critical here is the lower limit of the ETS.  Set too low, it will cripple the economy. Set too high and it will have not effect.  It needs to be set to a point that encourages the more efficient station to remain efficient and the less efficient ones to come up to that standard.

Randal says:

02:21pm | 09/09/10

Well it sounds a little like the fanciful “Clean Coal” nonsense to me, but I would look at any measure that assists in a cleaner environment at a cost which is not burdesome upon the nation.

However what you propose is long way from the policies of the Greens who are driving this committe and want to see an end to Australia’s coal industry through a punitive carbon taxation system.

ibast says:

02:12pm | 09/09/10

Simon and Randal, the beauty of it is it forces efficiencies.  Making a power plants more efficient is the best way of reducing carbon emissions.  So you don’t see the big price hike, rather savings are made.  The bonus is you reduce carbon emissions.

The problem I have is that it only addresses carbon emission.  It should be expanded to more toxic emissions.

Randal says:

01:54pm | 09/09/10

So Ibast what you are asking for then is for the Australian people and businesses to pay a premium on our energy, not because it will see a reduction in our carbon emissions, but because you think it will be good for some of the power to have a makeover.

Well that is one way to look at a tax that would bankrupt the nation.

simon says:

01:27pm | 09/09/10

Well ibast, I could not disagree with you more. The objective is to reduce carbon, not make money!!!!!I am pretty sure most people dont want a carbon tax, most people are struggling to pay their bills now!!!!

ibast says:

01:22pm | 09/09/10

Randal, being in the industry I know that renewable will only constitute 20% of power in the medium (to even longer) term.  So this means that the coal stations will need to upgrade.  Every station I visit has any number of projects on the shelf ready to go once a carbon trading scheme is initiated.

Randal says:

11:23am | 09/09/10

@ibast, if you do work in the “power industry” and from your comments I seriously doubt that, then the last thing you should support is an ETS or a Carbon Tax as the primary purpose of such a tax is to make the cost of burning coal for energy so expensive that it is replaced by renewables, thereby shutting down the coal fired stations (actual Green policy).

So and ETS done correctly, instead of acting as a stimulus for the mining industry that would drive our next ‘mining boom’ it would instead be the death of the mining industry, as as such your job.

L. says:

09:37am | 09/09/10

“An ETS, if done correctly ,would be the equivalent of the next mining boom.”.....

With the “boom” coming out of my pocket for almost zero climate benefit.

Screw that.

Super D says:

09:10am | 09/09/10

“An ETS, if done correctly” - if done correctly is the key.  I don’t think that it can be and am 99% sure that even if it could, it wouldn’t.  Look at the insulation debacle where every scammer with a ute and an ABN ran rings around the woodducks in the environment department.

Dana says:

11:58am | 09/09/10

Ewbank and Pieke Jr are on the same page regarding carbon pricing. In a post yesterday Pielke argued that we should ‘tax or otherwise price today’s energy supply to invest in tomorrow’s energy supply. India’s government has proposed a variant on this theme with a coal tax to be used for clean energy innovation.’ This is obviously the point made in this article.
(http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2010)

Gregg says:

04:14pm | 12/09/10

@ Dave,
And just how well have you researched climate change yourself to believe everything that is put forward?
Have a look at the history behind the IPCC
http://www.wiseupjournal.com//?p=1203
And whilst it can be said this is just more pro skeptic propaganda, also have a further read on how temperature claims are questionable and findings of US Senate hearings being amongst a lot of information about.
And Eric I, I’m glad you’ve put it like ” would not recessarily hurt ” for just like any increases in cost of living the ability of governments to accurately monitor and adjust is dismal and you only have to look at the IPCC climate change modelling variations and our own governments recent mining tax bungling for some great examples.
State/Local governments with electricity and water privatisation and no ability to control/answer re cost increases for more and so one way or another all we’ll have is more bureacracy and costs with nought to be gained other than more more desperate people.

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

06:00pm | 09/09/10

Eric Ireland :  One would assume pensioners and low income earners would be compensated but under this cobbled together mess we have ,
its highly unlikely.  How these drongos expect charging a carbon tax to cut down on carbon discharge , no one knows.  Industry must survive or the alternative will apply , unemployment and misery , so the fact remains , the public will pay the price and the carbon pollution will carry on and on.

Eric Ireland says:

01:15pm | 09/09/10

A carbon tax would not recessarily hurt pensioners and low income earners. The revenue generated could be used to compensate them for any increase in the cost of living. Sweden, Denmark and Norway have had a carbon tax since the early 90s, and all three countries have had higher economic growth than the average for the EEC countries.

As for th reality of climate change, have a look at the NASA website. Do you believe they’re a bunch of raving looneys too?

Dave says:

11:55am | 09/09/10

If those on the right of the political spectrum (e.g. climate skeptics) were even vaguely prepared to listen to the climate believers and accomodate some of their wishes for a low carbon economy, voters wouldn’t be forced to turn to the Raving Loony Party.

The only reason I voted Green this election is because they want to do something about climate change. The rest of their policies would bury Australia.

The general “climate believer” wisdom is, the longer we wait the more it will cost. The recent election is proof of this. If something had been done about this years ago, the carbon tax would have been a lot easier to deal with. Now that people have voted the greens in, they wont hold back on carbon pricing.

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

09:01am | 09/09/10

thatmosis :  Very well said indeed .  Not once has the Brown the Green addressed the cost to the community for Carbon Tax implementation.
Everyday living will cop a whack upwards , those struggling now , will be pushed to pauper status . Pensioners will bear the brunt of the raving lunatics who are proping up the remnants of the Rudd/Gillard failure .
The Raving Looney party will be in a position next July to extort their price for passing legislation in the Senate and able to introduce their own legislation via Bandt the barbarian in the House of Reps.
Rest assured , the Greens will demand a reward for propping up a govt. cobbled together with the aid of turncoats and a Green loony posing as an independent.

Gregg says:

03:51pm | 12/09/10

Its quite likely to be somewhat a bit more disastrous than that Tony and you may eventually be looking for a cheaper place to live than Poorakistan.
If governments continue to believe we have to decrease carbon output in the form of CO2 even further, it’ll kind of be a bit like Argentina or Zimbabewe inflation with printing more bank notes only in this case it will be CCs.
It’ll not be the government selling them so much but no doubt there’ll be some form of revenue for them involved in getting a credit established and then in the trading as per stocks on any exchange.

So back to the old gumtree Paul and may well the Kookaburras be laughing even more but you’re not all that far off the mark for it seemed the fuzzy wuzzy angels were still abounding up Kokoda way to apparently have Australia paying for forests not to be logged.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/png-forest-logging-threatens-emission-scheme-20080602-2kw3.html for some info and now with backflips and Brown handstands and Kevin flipping about who knows what will happen while Garnaut is singinging merrily merrily are we as a couple of companies he is part of are busily raping and pillaging other resources.
Somehow I think it’s more like a giant redwood we’re all being shafted with!
Maybe we can get credits for all the Sandalwood being grown in the Ord River irrigation area and shipped to India to offset the shipping fuel and eventual burning of it.

Tony of Poorakistan says:

08:05am | 09/09/10

@ Paul

Good question. As far as I can tell, there will be a limited number of carbon credits in cirulation. Those that clean up their act will not need to buy them; those that don’t will need to buy them until such time as they bring their pollution levels down.

The people who will make money are the Government, who will sell them (ie it is effectively a tax) and the middlemen who will arrange the sales (probably the usual Collins St crooks-in-suits).

Companies who are forced to buy will then pass on the extra cost to the consumer, such that we (the mug punters) are the only people who are actually out of pocket.

More info: http://www.ctrade.org/about.html

Gregg says:

03:10pm | 12/09/10

@ Dave,
Did you bother to look at the Scamming aspect that would exist if the HCF23 is being deliberately manufactured in the first place so that credits can then be sold for its destruction.
The keyword being deliberate!

Front Row says:

11:47am | 10/09/10

Wouldn’t it be easier just to put a one percent tax on everything that burns carbon or methane?  Then tip that money, with minimal bureaucracy and politicking, into renewables and/or nuclear subsidies?
That means petrol, hard fuels, power, agriculture, the whole lot. One percent.
Fixed.
Next?

dave says:

10:07pm | 09/09/10

wait, you are saying that destroying a gas which is supposed to be 11,700 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2 is not an activity worthy of reward?  You would much rather this just be released into the atmosphere?

Richard says:

04:55pm | 09/09/10

Great idea Super D! This completely changes the mechanics of Carbon taxing~ instead of trying to adjust the supply-side of the equation with a monolithic tax on industrial production, we can change the demand-side of the equation by instituting your CO2 consumption tax. This in turn leads to changes in consumer’s behaviours, a change in mind-set that could well be contagious and catch on in other countries~ we could become world leaders in enviro-conscientiousness (instead of the highest or 2nd highest carbon emitters per capita like we are now).

Front Row says:

07:13pm | 12/09/10

Gregg -
I know what you mean, the subsidies are already going all over the place.
Perhaps governments could drop all the subsidies and, at the same time, make the household energy investment a simple expense that can be depreciated at 50 percent, with interest on loans also a tax deduction.
I know, it’s still a “subsidy” in one respect, but we might as well use the tax system for something beyond redistributing national wealth to the politically fashionable.
Landlords could “sell” domestic power to residents at a capped 45 percent of an agreed MWh price until their outlay is recouped, then make their own arrangements.
The power base-load problem is only going to be addressed once we have small “cassette” nuclear reactors at each major user of three-phase power and regional communities.
This will dice the “transmission costs” rorting of the major energy companies and make a lot of remote/regional Australia economically viable, attracting people away from overloaded cities along with other existing things like cheaper house prices, less congestion/crime et al.
The Yanks already run aircraft carriers and subs on this nuclear technology, so why the hell not? Security is something that needs to be thought through, but it’s not impossible.
What’s always got me in this debate is that people who want to control carbon in the air seem to think that’s somehow easier than controlling the remnants of nuclear power.
I’d rather bury the by-product encased in three foot of lead out on the Woomera rocket range, two km down inside some of the most stable geological systems in the world, and put a 200km fence around it.
Better that than chase invisible, un-smellable gases around the sky - with the cheery help of Goldman Sachs.

Gregg says:

12:59pm | 12/09/10

It’s not just the developed world getting nuclear Freeman but even Vietnam and the Middle East.
Australia will soon be part of the less developed but more polluting and poorer world unfortunately.
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN_Reactor_and_fuel_take_back_for_Vietnam_0909101.html
And @ Front Row,
nothing to stop you going for the wind/solar and you may even get a generous generation payment but how responsible is it for other taxpayers not able to afford the initial outlay to be subsidising those able to take up offers and then having even more cost to the taxpayer where generation payment is an incentive.
At the same time, you’ll still have a need for power stations for all the base load power.
With the water tanks, you’ll find many rural people have water tanks and one of the reasons why it may not be so desirable as a complete system for suburbia or any urban living is the extent of pollution that ends up on house roofs and eventually in your water tank!
Your tank water might be acidic enough you could do away with a waste connection and just have a good cesspool!

Front Row says:

07:38pm | 11/09/10

Eric,
I tend to lean towards your more balanced view of the world, but finding a way to diversify our energy sources seems like a smart thing to do.
If we take all the Marxist crap out of the “Climate Change Debate’, there are some potentially good ideas in the mix - albeit good ideas for the wrong reasons, if you know what I mean.
For instance: If individual Australian households can purchase price independence through solar panels, or wind, rather than be dictated to by government and privately owned power sellers, then the big suppliers become power “insurers” rather than cost dictators.
There’s an up-front capital cost, sure, but look at the future benefits to those people.
The same goes for investing in independent catchment of roof/rain-water into big 30kl tanks beneath all new (or even older) homes.  It gives new power to individuals, rather than the corporate state and our damned bureaucracies.
Now…  that might happen to tally with the Warmists’ view of how things should go, but who really cares? I don’t care if climate change is real if I have a chance to leverage some independence off the back of a possibly misguided push-subsidy from the government.
Why don’t we think about ways to minimise the mestatic power of the state?  Let’s sack the mongrels and do what we can for ourselves.

Ferret says:

02:08pm | 10/09/10

Dave I will happily shot holes in this per-capita crap. CO2 emission has a strong correlation with GDP growth. Soo a better measure is the amount of CO2 per $of GDP. A simple measure of per capita is dumb to say the least as an influx of population will quickly reduce our emissions without actually doing anything. By at least starting with a reasonable link like GDP you can see the true impact of Emission reduction and the need to develop smart ideas on how to handle the situation.

Anyone who thinks we should look at emission per capita needs to hit the books again. They have clearly missed the strong links between industry and emission levels.

Freeman says:

09:41am | 10/09/10

Dave,
the sole reason we have a higher Co2 output per capita is because the
rest of the developed world is using nuclear power and most of our power still comes from burning coal.
So are you an advocate for nuclear power?

dave says:

09:58pm | 09/09/10

what is the cost to Australia if China chooses to set export levies based on the foreign companies polution levels?

Australia is pumping out CO2 pollution per capita way ahead of most other developed countries.  The atmospheric CO2 levels are at higher levels than since the dinosaurs walked the earth.

It is time for the poltical dinsuars to realise they lost the argument and let the realists fix the problems created by greed, sloth and ignorance.

LC says:

09:15am | 09/09/10

An extra point, Nathan, is that even if we manage to get our emission levels down to our current government’s goal, if the two most populated countries (China and India) do little or nothing to lower their emissions then is any significant difference made?

Nathan says:

07:59am | 09/09/10

Exactly but the answer needs to go even further than that. Not just is anthropogenic Global Warming real,

but assuming the answer is yes;
what is the real cost of action?
What will this action achieve?
If a carbon price (set at a certain level) decrease Australias CO2 emmisions by 20%, how will that effect the climate?
Is CO2 actually the cause of an assumed anthropogenic Global Warming?
Are we actually taxing the wrong thing? Should we be taxing CO (carbon monoxide) instead? or any other gas?
At what point does the cost of carbon become too high to affordibly abandon this proposal and focus on alternative solution?
Would it be more cost effective for us to adapt rather than fight climate change?

I know there are pleanty of climate genious’s on here who swallow everything Al Gore says so if one of you genious’s can answer the above i would be greatful.