The Bullroarer - Tuesday 15 July 2008
Posted by Big Gav on July 15, 2008 - 7:27am in The Oil Drum: Australia/New Zealand
The Age - The great biofuels con
Growing crops for oil was supposed to solve global warming. Now, as food prices soar, biofuels stand condemned as a crime against humanity. Rarely in political history can there have been such a rapid and dramatic reversal of a received wisdom as we have seen in the past 18 months over biofuels - the cropping of living plants, such as soybeans, wheat and sugar cane, to generate energy.
Two years ago biofuels were still being hailed as a dream solution to what was seen as one of the most urgent problems confronting mankind - our dependence on fossil fuels, which are not only finite but seemed to be threatening the world with the catastrophe of global warming.
frogblog - Electrifying the Rails - a Peak Oil Silver BB?
Everyone agrees that there is no single technology, no single silver bullet to solve the challenges we face because of peak oil. However, across the bigger ditch in the US, a very relevant debate is brewing about a key technology plank in the response to peak oil - electrified rail. This topic is particularly pertinent as New Zealand gets ready to reinvigorate its own rail network after decades of neglect during our love affair with the black gold. ...
I think that KiwiRail should be seriously considering finishing the electrification of the Auckland to Wellington Line, which is currently over 1/3 electrified already, with plans and budgets to complete the Auckland end using the same specifications. We already have a plausible target of 90% renewables by 2025, way ahead of any American plan. Let’s get cracking on this no-brainer of a solution before the cost of oil goes sky high and the capital cost goes up with it!
Peak Energy - By Foot And By Rail
The Age - 'Dirty' fuel firms split clean energy group
A DAMAGING rift has split Australia's top renewable energy group following an effective takeover of the organisation by fossil fuel companies. At a time when more renewable energy is needed to replace polluting forms of electricity, the Clean Energy Council has been hit with accusations that it is run for the interests of "dirty fuel" companies, including the operators of three of Victoria's brown-coal power stations. ...
The council formed last year after politicians complained it was difficult to deal with the three groups then representing the renewable sector, but the split has become so bitter there are doubts it can effectively lobby for clean energy. Some members expressed dismay to The Sunday Age that Tasmanian timber giant Gunns was recently approved as a Clean Energy Council member for its proposed wood-burning plant. The bioenergy plant, part of the company's planned pulp mill, will burn waste from native forests and plantations to produce electricity.
"The way it's going we'll have nuclear energy on the council soon," said Rodger Meads, the Australian head of international solar power company Conergy, which pays $25,000 for council membership.
Clean Energy Council - Clean Energy Council says follow the leader - Canberrans paid top dollar for producing clean energy
As of 2 July 2008, ACT homes and businesses with small, grid-connected systems, such as solar photovoltaic (PV) panels or micro wind turbines, will be paid top dollar for all the energy they produce. This is known as a gross feed-in tariff. The ACT’s gross feed-in tariff is set at more than three times the current cost of electricity and will lead to increased take-up of renewable energy throughout the territory.
“Canberra is certainly leading the way but we already have three different feed-in tariff schemes in Victoria, Queensland and South Australia. A national approach would be a better solution.”
Upstream Online - Bechtel wins Gladstone LNG work
Queensland Gas Company (QGC) and UK-based BG Group have picked engineering contractor Bechtel to build the proposed Gladstone liquefied natural gas project in Queensland.
Upstream Online - New oil shale deposit in South Australia
Perth-based explorer Tasman Resources is set to undertake further analysis of an oil shale prospect in the remote deserts of South Australia that mirrors deposits such as Nunavut in Canada. The Australian outfit said that it had identified the potential for a deposit of shale oil while drilling for coal and other minerals at its Garford project, 80 kilometres south-west of Coober Pedy.
Stuff.co.nz - Funding boost for waste gas biofuel project
Plans for a new biofuel made from waste gas belching out of industrial chimneys have received a $12 million boost from the Government. Its developers hope the new fuel will slash the country's petrol consumption by 90 per cent.
The project is one of 96 to get a share of $785 million over five years from the funding agency Foundation for Research, Science and Technology. LanzaTech, the Auckland company developing the biofuel, has already attracted heavyweight backing from Sun Microsystems co-founder Vinod Khosla.
The Australian - New Pilbara power station planned by Rio. Better hope Varanus island doesn't blow up again...
RIO Tinto plans to invest more than $US500 million on upgrading its power sources in the Pilbara to support its iron ore operations. The mining giant will build generation and transmission infrastructure near Karratha, in Western Australia, worth $US503 million ($515.9 million) to supply electricity to its port and mine operations. The new power station will be constructed adjacent to the 7 Mile Rail Operations site. It will use natural gas turbines, resulting in a reduction in greenhouse gas emission rates.
The Age - Melbourne's trams are a hostile place
This is a city that fines visitors who don't know how to buy tickets. APPARENTLY, it makes economic sense to bring back tram conductors to Melbourne's trams. Excuse my bluntness, but der, Fred. And, ah, what about all the other factors that make something a good idea? Such as safety, functionality, enjoyment?
The Age - New rail tunnel may be privatised
A PROPOSED $7 billion rail tunnel from Footscray to Caulfield could be privatised under funding options being considered by the Brumby Government and being backed by Metlink, the body that promotes Melbourne's public transport operations. The Government has also refused to rule out fare increases to help pay for the tunnel.
NZ Herald - Hydro generation rises
Stuff.co.nz - Electricity industry relaxes
The nationwide winter power crisis is drawing to a close, but the industry says the South Island is not out of trouble yet. Despite low southern hydro lakes, South Island spot prices yesterday fell to their lowest levels in nearly six months, the strongest hint yet that electricity suppliers believe the shortage may be over.
The Australian - Restricted access delivers lower uranium output: ERA
ENERGY Resources of Australia delivered a 31 per cent drop in uranium output for the quarter after restricted access to the open pit.
Crikey - Crikey's green paper: these are the climate options
So what are the criteria for an effective carbon abatement framework?
* It creates genuine incentives for carbon abatement across the economy i.e. it works.
* It avoids administrative complexity and compliance burdens. Businesses and governments have to be able to make it work, without devoting huge amounts of resources to it.
* It is complementary to likely international carbon abatement measures. There’s lots of scepticism about the likelihood of an international agreement on climate change, but that’s even more reason to look for a framework that is more likely to be accepted internationally.
* It minimises the burden on low-income households.
* It encourages technological innovation, because technology may be able to make it easier and less expensive to reduce our carbon emission (we’ll discuss these two points more tomorrow when we look at the issue of compensation).Let’s go through the different types of proposals and see how they stack up.
The Australian - Govt considers Australia's first new coal port in 25 years. Because you can never burn too much coal.
AUSTRALIA'S first new coal port in 25 years could be built in Queensland, to boost the state's coal exports by 40 per cent. Premier Anna Bligh today announced a “trifecta” of proposals for the Bowen, Galilee and Surat coal basins, during a budget estimates committee hearing. Ms Bligh said the government was considering a $5.3 billion proposal by Waratah Coal, including a new mine near Alpha.
The Galilee Coal project would produce 25 million tonnes of thermal coal a year for export. A new coal port would be built near Shoalwater Bay, between Rockhampton and Mackay, with a 100 million tonne a year capacity.
The Australian - Climate protesters shut down coal port
POLICE arrested 37 activists who chained themselves to a train and rail tracks at Newcastle Port yesterday, shutting down the world's largest coal port for seven hours. Protest organisers said up to 1000 people marched to the Carrington coal terminal to demonstrate against government inaction on climate change. About 100 people scaled or cut through fences to enter the rail corridor and tie themselves to a fully loaded coal train.
Stuff.co.nz - Food prices at 18-year high
Soaring food and petrol prices pushed annual inflation up to 4 percent in the June year after the Consumer Price Index (CPI) leapt a higher than expected 1.6 percent in the June quarter, Statistics New Zealand said today. The department reported food prices rose 8.2 percent in the June year – the highest rise in the Food Price Index (FPI) for 18 years.
frogblog - Imagine there’s no…
Worldchanging has put on its best John Lennon glasses and written a post about a hopeful new post-green future ...
It then invites readers to contribute to its vision for a better world by imagining all the things we won’t need anymore once we sort our problems. It starts the ball rolling by telling us about a world without rubbish bins, toxic warning labels, power bills or smokestacks. Sun heated and insulated homes replace air conditioners, compact urban neighbourhoods replace dangerous footpaths, and public transport replaces sprawl.
Peak Energy - Colourful Concentrators: Organic Solar
Peak Energy - Wave power in China
Peak Energy - Boogie Power And Victoria's Circuit
A Few Things Ill Considered - Another Week of Global Warming News, July 13, 2008. More links than any human being can read in a day.
Peak Energy - Short Takes. Even more links.
Contact
- anz at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Archives
- November 2010 (2)
- October 2010 (5)
- September 2010 (4)
- August 2010 (8)
- July 2010 (2)
- June 2010 (2)
- May 2010 (6)
- April 2010 (7)
- March 2010 (12)
- February 2010 (11)
- January 2010 (7)
- December 2009 (10)
- November 2009 (6)
- October 2009 (7)
- September 2009 (10)
- August 2009 (10)
- July 2009 (3)
- June 2009 (14)
- May 2009 (10)
- April 2009 (15)
- March 2009 (16)
- February 2009 (16)
- January 2009 (15)
- December 2008 (15)
- November 2008 (23)
- October 2008 (25)
- September 2008 (24)
- August 2008 (30)
- July 2008 (44)
- June 2008 (38)
- May 2008 (48)
- April 2008 (43)
- March 2008 (29)
- February 2008 (32)
- January 2008 (30)
- December 2007 (26)
- November 2007 (32)
- October 2007 (11)
A couple more stories :
SMH - SA farmers' water allocations set at 2%
SMH - Gas tax branded 'greedy'
I'm a bit sceptical of a cap and trade system. It seems to me that both the buyer and the seller of carbon credits have an incentive to 'cheat'. It's not really self regulating like a normal market. My 2c is that all of the permits should also have a taxation component, so the government has an incentive to police the transactions, as well as having a dampening effect on the market. If no one wants your unused credits (the price falls below the taxation rate) then you just give them back to the government.
Obviously along with this the government should lower income tax - maybe use the revenue to dump the bottom tax bracket.
Not as sceptical as me, as you can see here.
So much with the Age articles, and you omitted three other relevant ones! But I s'pose no-one can read everything ;)
The Vic state Transport Minister - Ms Kosky, who in response to questions whether the system would be made entirely public once more, infamously said "I don't want to run a public transport system" - so, really the Mostly Transport Minister - has defended stupidly expensive ticket machines even as a Sydney light rail line has rejected them in favour of conductors - because it makes them more money!
On the front page, Jeff Sachs slapped down the ETS, saying a carbon tax was a lot better.
The unions and aluminium industry cried like little girls at the thought of actually having to pay for their carbon emissions. As usual, the cry is that jobs will go overseas to places without a carbon cost. Since bauxite does not appear in every country in the world, they'd still have to mine the stuff here, they'd just want to refine it elsewhere; this would easily be fixed by an export tariff on bauxite.
As I've said before, I'm always puzzled that digging stuff up, building coal-fired stations and highways is supposed to create jobs and be an investment in our future, and recycling stuff, building wind turbines and railways is supposed to cost jobs and be an intolerable burden on the taxpayer.
Unfortunately the future doesn't make as much noise as the status quo.
Sorry for not reading all of your local paper - I do have a day job you know :-)
Surely the off shore arguement should be piffle ..that is if we had a sensible government. Either:-
1. You have a GST style system where there is no need for a license if the goods are to go off shore OR as with the GST
2. all incomming goods are subject to the "tax" / "licensing" or, as it is increasingly entering into the language from briain "whatever..."
Unfortunatly Kiashu, if the aluminium refining jobs went, there goes my town and much of the industry. I don't think Australia is the only place with large bauxite deposits. If we whacked an export tariff on the stuff our current customers would probably be able to source much of it elsewhere.
I'm not saying that I know for a fact that this will be the effect but living in a town that has three of Australia's seven refineries/smelters means I am a little concerned about the jobs of people in my town.
According to the U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity Summaries, January 2008 [online information here], Australia produces 64 million of the world's 190 million tonnes of bauxite annually, and has 7,900 million of world 32,000 million tonnes.
That is, Australia produces one-third the world's bauxite and has one-quarter the world's reserves. Really we ought to drop our production a bit, otherwise we'll be the first to run short of the stuff.
Our largest bauxite production competitor is China, producing 32 million tonnes annually - half as much as us. We're the second-largest in reserves, Guinea has 8,600 million tonnes in reserve.
So there's quite a safe margin there for us in terms of being able to put in carbon taxes, tariffs, emissions permits, whatever. We're not going to find that the mineral companies just mine it somewhere else. They're not going to replace a third of world production in a matter of months.
This isn't like making t-shirts or something. That's the thing about mineral extraction, it can't go just anywhere like manufacturing and (to some degree) service industry work. If the minerals are in country X, then that's where you have to dig them up. You can go to other sources, sure - but so do others, wooops demand exceeds supply, then the world price goes up, and after a bit country X starts looking more attractive again.
That's a tough call on metal industry workers trying to pay mortgages and bring up kids. I see little sign that Australia's aluminium industry can reduce its fossil fuel dependence. Note problems of natgas shortages at Worsley WA, brown coal which powers Portland Vic and the move to coal seam methane in Gladstone Qld. Even Bell Bay in Tas is really fossil dependent not hydro since a generator using Bass gas was built next door. I can't see any way that solar and windpower could run the metals industries. They might have to offshore to China for unrestricted coal use, the Congo for hydro or Russia for nuclear power. It might be 20 years before they came back to Oz.
A (normalised) 1 GW CSP plant is no different to a 1 GW coal plant from the point of view of an aluminium smelter (only your grandkids and the people living near the plant or the coal mines can tell the difference).
You really need to get over this idea that renewable energy is somehow less powerful than old forms of power generation - once its an electron on the wire it doesn't matter where it came from.
And if peak fossil fuels hit us harder than we expect, and/or climate change turns catastrophic, they'll lose their jobs, too.
This is the way it goes: change is coming, whether we like it or not. We can have change which we plan for, or change which is forced upon us.
Which is better:
- to give a month's notice and then look for another job, or be sacked without notice?
- to go to marriage counselling and then decide it's not working and get a divorce, or to come home one day and find your missus in bed with another bloke?
- to spend six months looking for a home to buy and live in, or be evicted with two weeks' notice?
- to renovate the kitchen, or have a truck come through it one day when you're out?
- to have a carbon tax make your aluminium smelter decide to build a CSP plant to keep it going, or have a coal shortage close it down entirely?
Forced change is always more painful and unpleasant than change you've chosen and planned for. But change is inevitable.
Nobody compensated farmers when tractors came in and made their horses useless as mechanised farms with economies of scale destroyed the small farms. "The world's changing, tough!" we said. Why are we so compassionate now? Why is it that when change is in the direction of machines and burning more fossil fuels, we say, "tough shit!" but when it's away from that we say, "oh no, the poor workers..."?
Are you shitty because the ETS is allowing the industries that provide most of the jobs and livelyhoods up my way to pretty much get away with continuing to pump out shitloads of carbon Kiashu?
I agree that it puts a pretty big dent in the initial effectiveness of the scheme, but did you ever actually think that ANY political party was going to be seen to put large numbers of jobs, the very existance of regional communities (no, not communities consisting of 6 houses and a pub with a horse tied up out front, small regional cities of up to 80 000 people in some cases), the national economy and consequently there own chances of re-election at such severe risk?
And what do you mean by peak fossil fuels? I accept the existence of peak oil but there is NO coal shortage nor is there likely to be anytime soon. Light crude oil may be a relative geological rarity but coal is MUCH more abundant. Is it polluting? Yes. Should we be moving toward carbon-free alternatives? Yes. We should be starting now - we should have started decades ago but we didn't and you can't just pull the rug straight out from under entire regions full of people and yell "tough shit! - it's for your own good".
BY far the biggest employers in my town burn/export coal and process bauxite and smelt aluminium. If those industries, or even just one of them went, there would be no jobs for that many people to go to.
I think that point bears repeating: THERE WOULD BE NO JOBS FOR THAT MANY PEOPLE TO GO TO.
If the smelter and alumina plants went, many small and medium local businesses would go under as well - you know, those things that also provide jobs and essential services.
We can start replacing coal-fired electricity STEADILY. Do it too fast and you will wreck the coal mining industry, wiping all the coal towns in the surrounding region off the map and forcing all those people to come here looking for the jobs that would no longer exist. The place would become a provincial slum, all for the sake of implementing an ideaolgy. I agree that global warming is a problem but we should not PANIC with knee-jerk reactions that would cause far more destruction in the short term - peak oil is a bigger problem.
Yes. According to today's Age, our two aluminium smelters use 25% of the state's electricity. So, since 54.8% of our 121.87 Mt of emissions come from coal-burning, they'd be responsible for something like 13.7% or 16.7Mt of the state's greenhouse gas emissions. All that and they provide 2,000 jobs directly, and about another 20,000 jobs indirectly. Thus, about 1% of total employment for about 14% of emissions.
Pretty piss-poor. Not much bang for our carbon buck. Can't we do better?
Let's suppose that making polluters pay would cost jobs. I come from a Victorian town which was built around two industries - the weet-bix factory and logging. When those went away thanks to economic rationalism, there was no compensation, no reduced taxes, no extra benefits, no help, the town died - nobody cared. Then we came to the city, and with desktop computers coming into workplaces we lost phone operators, typists, typesetters, printers, secretaries, and so on. Nobody cared about them, either. And in the outer suburbs more economic rationalism sent manufacturing jobs overseas, supposedly Aussies couldn't make t-shirts and would have to become tour operators or something. Which of course didn't happen. But nobody cared.
Why are we suddenly so compassionate when it comes to coal miners and smelter workers?
Anyhow, all the smelters have to do is invest in renewable energy. Nowhere in the laws of physics or the land is it written that they must power themselves with coal. Alcoa could diversify, becoming an energy supply company as well as an aluminium company. Diversification strengthens a company, makes it resilient - important in these deregulated times. They could then sell the excess energy to the surrounding towns, this investment would create jobs, and so on.
As I've said before, I am puzzled as to why mining coal, building coal-fired plants and maintaining them is held to be an investment for the future and create jobs, but mining silicon, building solar and wind plants and maintaining them will be a heavy cost and destroy jobs. The truth is that in both cases it's a cost which is also an investment in the future, and some jobs are lost, others are gained - things change.
It's a change, and change creates opportunities for people who are creative and adaptable. And those who aren't get left behind. Again, we never cared before - so why now?
Peak fossil fuels are an issue because as oil depletes, absent any effective measures against global warming people are going to turn first to natural gas and then to coal. So whatever we're exporting and consuming now is going to be more and more in demand for different uses, all their current uses plus substituting for oil. Yeah, yeah, our gas and coal will last forever, sure - that's what everyone was saying about oil until about a year ago.
So, the stuff is going to run short, and climate change is going to come, and at some point coal mining and aluminium smelter jobs - if the stupid things are still powered by coal - are going to go. Kaput, gone. We can wait for the change to be forced on us, or we can plan for it now.
I don't care if you don't care about my region and it's 70 000 odd inhabitants Kiashu - I care.
While I don't work in the resource sector, many of my relatives and friends do and I would not be happy to watch their lives destroyed because some clown thinks he's on a mission to save them from themselves. Thank f**k you don't have power.
I would like to see the industries chip in for alternative energy - there's plenty of sunshine here and a pretty savage tidal race at the top of Gladstone harbour - but until that is actually up and running it means nothing. It would have to be mandated - maybe instead of making them buy carbon licsences, they could make them contribute towards carbon-free power generator construction. But the company that owns the aluminium smelter and part-owns one of the alumina plants spent a colossal sum on part-purchasing the local coal fired power station. The companies will naturally make threats to piss off to somewhere cheaper and they might just make good on those threats too.
If you have a method of making the worlds most used metal - steel - without carbon (coal), let me know.
You sound a little bitter that no-one cared about you and your community. Sorry to hear that (where was it BTW - I spent a couple of months travelling the southern states last year, nice place Vic). But rest assured I will not be inclined to sit back and let it happen to mine. Let's phase in alternatives and phase out fossil fuels STEADILY so as not to cause undue harm and grief.
Your smelter should sell its shares in the coal-fired station and invest in some renewable energy. If they don't then they're a short-sighted company which is doomed to fail anyway. I mean, I just heard on the news Qantas is going to knock off a few thousand jobs next week. Why? High cost of fuel. So there we go - peak oil is claiming jobs.
So this is what I was saying, peak oil and climate change are going to destroy these fossil fuel-intensive jobs whether we like it or not. It's better to do it in a planned way, and at least get some revenue along the way, revenue we can invest in stuff like renewable energy - so your smelter mates have something to go to.
Tax/trade with revenue reinvested in renewables offers your smelter mates and the coal miners different jobs to go to. Peak oil and fossil fuels offers them nothing to go to. Don't rage against me, mate.
I care as much about your particular region as you care about any other particular region in the country - or the world, for that matter.
I'm interested in Australia having an economy which allows us to be well-off tomorrow as well as today. This business of digging stuff up and selling it overseas can only go on so long. What the Saudis are to oil we are to coal, iron, bauxite - and topsoil. One day we'll wake up and the stuff will have run short and we'll be rooted. Even the Saudis are figuring that out and building plastics factories - okay, still using their depleting resource, but stretching it out a bit, better money out of it than just burning it. We're too lazy for that.
We've had twenty years for the gradual, steady change you're asking for. Who was asking for it twenty years ago? I was, even in high school I could see that living by digging stuff up and selling it overseas couldn't go on forever. How about ten years ago? Five? Now that things are urgent suddenly everyone's talking about it, and they want it to be gradual and steady.
Unfortunately for Australia we're running short of time. We had twenty years' warning of climate change and peak oil and we pissed it away. We like to blame Sheriff Johnny but when it comes down to it he got re-elected because he kept telling us what we wanted to hear. "Naw, screw the boongs, screw the foreign darkies, too, screw those lazy poor people, and screw the climate, just keep diggin' stuff up it's the Strayin' way oh hello Uncle Sam let me just fetch the Crisco..."
We had two decades, maybe three decades if we'd been particularly switched-on. Now that oil is finally a sane price and cities are being wiped out by hurricanes we're saying, "oh bugger... well... can we have some more time, please?"
Pencils down, heads up, pass your papers to the front, time's up. It's time to get moving now.
Kiashu, I would like to see our smelter to sell it's share of the power station (probably at a loss if carbon emissions are targeted) and invest in renewables.
WHEN they are up and running you can proceed to start hitting them with carbon taxes as an incentive to completely phase them in. Do it before that and you will likely f**k things up.
Until I see some concrete proof to the contrary, I will have to assume that many renewable sources will not employ near as many people to run them. Efficient? Certainly, but you need to replace the jobs lost from the coal-fired generators. I visited a wind farm down your way, near Port Fairy. It was impressive but I did not see a single person working there - they were scarcely required. As far as I'm aware, no generator had previously existed there. So it hadn't replaced a fossil-fuel generator and knocked off a bunch of jobs like the closure of the power station here would.
So these things must be done slowly.
Hi Lefty,
While my own views tend to line up much more closely with those of Kiashu, I can offer you some specific reassurances about Gladstone.
If you read the summary of the Green Paper, (http://www.climatechange.gov.au/greenpaper/report/index.html), you'll see that Rudd will be bending over backwards to protect the export-competing industries of Gladstone. You shouldn't listen to scare campaigns to the contrary, they're just negotiating ploys from the companies - and they've worked!
For those with more Greenish opinions, Rudd's CPRS is already sounding like a very watered-down regime. On the plus side, it provides a National example to other countries and establishes the trading infrastructure to merge with future more effective global schemes. However, until such global schemes arise (and we're probably talking decades) I don't see the good citizens of Gladstone having anything to fear from carbon trading.
A bigger priority for you to focus on is how to help your family and friends cope with the near-term Peak Oil crisis in transport fuels and possible economic depression. (The keys are get out of debt, plant some veggies, buy a bike, and stay on good terms with your employer!) After that, why not stand for Gladstone Council and get all the local work-for-the-dole types slaving away on some dikes for all your infrastructure below 6 metres... just in case Global Warming doesn't work out as benignly as the Labor Party thinks!
;-)
We're not talking about mineral extraction going elsewhere Kiashu, we're talking about thousands of processing jobs going elsewhere.
Where do you live Kiashu? It's pretty easy to theorise that people who live elsewhere are not going to be affected by something. When it's closer to home, we naturally become a bit more concerned. I am not opposed to the idea of an ETS or of a tariff as such but it (the tariff) might just bring an equivalant reaction from our customer. They don't have to stop buying our product, they can reduce the amount they buy from us and increase the amount from other sources.
I'm puzzled by comments that CO2 cap and trade won't be monitored. The US Environmental Protection Agency both runs an SO2 auction (having apparently sacked a private firm) and monitors the stuff
http://www.epa.gov/air/airtrends/sulfur.html
Remember the two huge advantages of cap and trade are that it gets the physical reduction right every time and that the CO2 price backs off in a recession, neither of which is true of a carbon tax. Moreover I'm sure intense lobbying would see dodgy offsets reincarnated as deductions in a carbon tax. Other points of difference are moot.
While in disagreement mode I also disagree with feed-in tariffs which are a transfer from the haves to the have-nots. Mildred the pensioner pays higher power bills so Barry Bling next door can have shiny solar panels. I agree with the Greens that eventually most rooftops should have panels and water heaters at government expense.
However the biggest outrage is building new coal terminals. Does it occur to Garnaut that everything he asks for is obliterated by coal exports?
I'm not sure exactly how far back you entered this mode (but I'm guessing more than a decade) - but the question that struck me when I read this was - will you ever leave it ?
(just kidding)
I still prefer carbon taxes over cap and trade industries that embed themselves into the economy forevermore.
I;d prefer the price of carbon be known in advance and always increasing - that is what will drive people and businesses to change their ways, not a floating price that drops during recessions.
With a tax you compensate the less well off via the tax system. Easy.
As for rooftop solar, only the well off can afford it. I think encouraging them to take some load off the grid can't hurt - they are still chipping in plenty of their own money. Mildred the pensioner doesn't pay tax and will get lower power bills because she won't be sharing the bill for new infrastructure if we can avoid building it because we have some peak generation distributed throughout the grid.
I agree with you about coal terminals - its just an outrage...
A new coal port?Yep,just what we need here in the Sunshine(sorry,Smart) State and in one of the least spoiled areas of the coast.But,haven't you heard,it's the jobs,jobs,jobs,stupid.
And all we proud Banana Benders amble off into a glorious future accompanied by massed bands playing Handel's Dead March and led by Ms Bligh and her antediluvian warriors dressed in coal black uniforms.
Actually,I'm getting to the stage of looking forward to Great Depression 2.