ETS

Pollution no! - Trading pollution, NO NO NO!

It's not my problem - my children will sort it out?
Other than ideological economics, there is so little information re the effects of ETS?
My observations of European experience suggests ETS is only that.. a trading mechanism, subject to all the abuse recentltly seen as GFC.. global finanacial collapse.
This is capitalism inventing new strategies to rip off new environmental fears?
Only traders have so far benefitted from ETS in Europe? Why would it be different in Australia?
Political spin doesn't change reality? Saying this is good doesn't make it so.
Blair is dead. Wake up Australia!
Unfortunately, there is no effective or informed opposition in Australia to competently read the response of moneyed interests. [Maybe latter the Greens?]

Change Needs to be Slow and Controlled

Climate change is a given fact, and it appears that the argument is whether or not man had been the major contributing factor.

To me it is irrelevant, in that, there is no way any western society is going to lower their living standards to a point where their emission levels will reduce to a point where changes in climate change will be noticed. As I see it, we would need to move back to the cave with no power, to make any significant change. In Australia alone, we put over 800k new motor vehicles on the road each year (with maybe .5% being hybrid), and millions of new electrical appliances (flat screen TVs, washing machines, aircons, fridges, etc, etc) each year, in fact our whole society is based on a throw away principle, and a large percentage of our employment is based this. Added to this, population experts are predicting Australias population will increase by around 30% over the next 20 years, further increasing requirements for goods and energy.

To change a population mindset is possible, but you will need to talk about many, many decades to even make a start. To stop people either driving their new motor vehicle, or telling them they cannot watch their new flat screen TV, is political suicide, and no Government would ever even contemplate such actions.

Having said the above, there is no reason why we do not start tacking actions in the back ground. Slowly moving energy production to renewable sources, in a way that Mr and Mrs Average (or as some commentators in these forums have called them - Mr and Mrs working class Slobs) do not get hit with major energy cost hikes that the Government would then be forces to subsidise. Build new suburbs that are public transport friendly, leaving high volume public transport corridors in new suburbs etc, etc. Encourage families to trade in old fuel guzzling motor vehicles by providing subsidies for new vehicles, as is done in parts of the US and Europe.

There are many, many other ways of slowly changing peoples mindset, but as any specialist in the field will tell you, trying to force change over a short period is a sure direction to disaster. By disaster, I mean that people will rebel, and actively work to sabotage the change needed. Including voting for any opportunistic political party (or independent) who may be prepared to pander to peoples worries.

Silence on nuclear debate from the Greens. Why?

With a lot of the world's Uber Greens promoting nuclear energy. Why don't the Australian Greens want to talk about this subject.

I would have though you were happy that an energy source has been identified that will provide cleen, green, safe, reliable, CO2 free and reliable power for all of the world, for all time. Why aren't you jumping with joy" Let's have a look at Green Left Weekly....

Nuclear debate: For climate, nuclear a neccessity (Barry Brook)

Barry Brook
25 October 2009

Let’s start by establishing some common ground between myself and anti-nuclear campaigners like Jim Green. Green and I both understand the seriousness of the climate crisis and the imperative for a rapid transformation of our energy system to technologies that emit no carbon when generating power.

Green and I also agree that proliferation of atomic weapons poses substantial risks to the security of global society. I also suspect that Green recognises the dangers of a dependence on foreign oil for our transportation infrastructure, one of the arteries of the economy.

Australia, like any nation, needs to move to energy independence based on clean, sustainable sources.

However, we part ways on our view as to what the solutions to these problems are. Green hopes to see a world without nuclear weapons or nuclear power, and considers the two to be irrevocably intertwined. (I assume he accepts the need for research reactors that produce the radioisotopes needed for nuclear medicine and industry.)

In Green’s view, and that of many other fellow environmentalists (I am, of course, deeply environmentally conscious), nuclear power is not only dangerous, but also unnecessary.

Renewable energy, from sunlight, wind, waves and plant life, is clearly the answer, they believe. This is a widespread view — almost “common wisdom” — and would be perfectly acceptable to me if the numbers could be made to work. Unfortunately, they can’t, and there is no prospect of this changing.

First, let’s quickly review the challenge. In the developed world, we have enjoyed a high standard of living, linked to cheap fossil energy.

This has encouraged excessive energy use, and we can clearly cut back on wastage — but this doesn’t remove the fact that we must also replace oil and gas, and that means a future surge in electrical substitution.

In the bigger, global picture, however, there is no realistic prospect of even reducing traditional stationary power demand. A third of the world’s people have no access to electricity at all, yet strongly aspire to get it.

Even if a country like India reached just a quarter of Australia’s per capita use, that country’s national energy demand would more than triple! It’s a huge challenge.

If we aim for society to be nearly completely powered by zero carbon sources by 2050, what is the size of the task?

This would require about 10,000 gigawatts of electrical capacity, worldwide. Let’s say we were to do it all with wind and solar. Even if we ignore energy storage and backup, this would still require building 1200 huge wind turbines and/or carpeting 45 square kilometres of desert with mirror fields, every day, from 2010 to 2050.

For wind, this would consume 600,000 tonnes of concrete and 300,000 tonnes of steel. For solar, it would be 200,000 tonnes of concrete, 150,000 tonnes of steel and 20,000 tonnes of glass. Every single day, for the next 40 years.

What if we did it with nuclear power? Using the AP1000 design now being deployed in China, we’d have to build two reactors every three days, using 100,000 tonnes of concrete and 8000 tonnes of steel a day. A huge task, no doubt, but this is 10 times smaller than the wind challenge, and five times easier than the solar option.

When energy storage and the required overbuilding are considered, the numbers blow out ever further in favour of nuclear.

So let’s not kid ourselves that because the task for nuclear seems huge, the renewable alternative is the only sensible choice. The hard truth is that it will be inordinately tough no matter what route we choose.

Now let’s consider further the nuclear pathway. Since the 1970s, when prominent environmental groups switched from being active supporters to trenchant detractors, nuclear power has fought an ongoing battle to present itself as a clean, safe and sustainable energy source.

Today, a mix of myths and old half-truths continue to distort people's thinking on nuclear power. Given the crises we face, this is downright dangerous.

Some of the most regularly raised objections are that uranium supplies will run out, nuclear accidents are likely, long-lived radioactive waste will be with us for 100,000 years, large amounts of carbon dioxide are produced over the nuclear cycle, it's too slow and costly, and a build-up of nuclear power will increase the risk of weapons proliferation.

Yet the surprising reality is that most of these perceived disadvantages of nuclear power don’t apply now, and none need apply in the future. As Australian Workers Union national secretary Paul Howes said recently, we just have to get serious about this.

Worldwide, nuclear power is not going away. Of the G20 economic forum nations, 15 have nuclear power, four are planning to take it up in the near future, and only one, Australia, has ruled it out.

The countries that now have commercial nuclear power already cover almost 80% of global greenhouse gas emissions. When you add those nations that have commissioned plants, are planning deployment, or already have research reactors, this figure rises to more than 90%.

I know it’s an over-used cliche, but the nuclear genie truly is out of the bottle, and it is pointless discussing how to try to jam the stopper back in.

In this context, the oft-repeated claim that new nuclear technologies “fail the crucial proliferation test” is asinine nonsense, and counterproductive if our aim is to increase global security.

We should instead seriously discuss how we will use this low-carbon energy source safely and cleanly, with minimal risk and maximal advantage to all nations.

There are 45 so-called Generation-III reactors under construction, including 12 in China. Many more are in the late stages of planning. In terms of costs and build times, modular, passive-safety designs, which can be factory built and shipped to site, look to be game changers for the industry.

Standardised blueprints with inherent safety systems are the clear way to remove the regulatory ratcheting that killed deployment of nuclear power in the US in the 1980s. France, with 80% of its electricity supplied by nuclear power, is a good example of how it can and should be done.

The modern reactor designs are efficient, with capacity factors exceeding 90%, and have a high degree of passive safety based on the inherent principles of physics.

For instance, the risk of a meltdown as serious as the Three Mile Island incident in the US (which resulted in no fatalities) for GE-Hitachi's Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR) has been assessed as once every 29 million reactor years.

So judging the ESBWR against the type of reactor that was destroyed at Chernobyl in Ukraine is like comparing the safety of a World War I biplane against a modern jetliner.

The future of nuclear power is potentially bright, if we choose to make it so. So-called fast reactors can provide vast amounts of clean, reliable energy for thousands of years.

For instance, a technology developed between 1964 and 1994 at the Argonne National Laboratory in the US, the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR), fissions more than 99% of the nuclear fuel, leaves only a small amount of waste (one 30th of current reactors) that drops below background levels of radiation within 300 years, shuts itself down if the control systems fail or the operators walk away, and its fuel cycle is extremely resistant to proliferation.

As an added benefit, all of the used nuclear fuel generated over the past 50 years can be consumed as fuel in these new reactors.

The IFR, and other Generation-IV designs using depleted uranium and thorium, offer a realistic future for nuclear power as the world's primary source of sustainable, carbon-free energy with resources to power the world for millions of years.

Ironically, it’s in places like China and India that these Gen-IV designs are now being most actively implemented. China has just commissioned two commercial fast reactors. India has just announced plans to install almost 500 gigawatts of thorium-based nuclear power by 2050.

The die is cast. It’s time for all energy-intensive nations to fast track the deployment of sustainable nuclear.

Renewable energy, such as solar and wind, and energy efficiency and conservation, might allow for a partial transition to a low-carbon economy. Indeed, this is Australia's only realistic prospect for emissions reductions during the next decade.

But I am convinced they will be grossly insufficient and uneconomic in meeting the problems we face. We will need concentrated sources of energy that are not constrained by geography or intermittency.

The Switkowski report said that, under a fast-paced schedule, we could see nuclear power delivering electricity in Australia within 10 years.

Perhaps with sufficient will and a decent carbon price we can get there even faster. But it's absolutely clear we must start the process now.

As a climate scientist, I consider the public dialogue on nuclear power to be every bit as urgent as the debate on a carbon price and the need for climate change adaptation. It is time for everyone to become nuclear savvy.

Australia's sustainable energy future depends critically on choices made today. Most of the developed and undeveloped world have already made their choice — the only open question is, how big will their nuclear programs get?

In the “lucky country”, it's time for green groups to become rational “promethean environmentalists”. Why? Because there's no silver bullet for solving the climate and energy crises. The bullets are made of depleted uranium and thorium.

[Barry Brook is the Sir Hubert Wilkins professor of climate change at the University of Adelaide. He runs a popular blog on climate change and sustainable energy at www.bravenewclimate.com.]

http://www.greenleft.org.au/2009/815/41931

Why is Australia the ONLY country not even considering a nuclear mix. Do you secretly LIKE burning coal? Barry Brook is a climate scientist. Are you blokes deniers or what?

Curious minds ask the question....... Over to you.

Population Growth and the CPRS

As Australia is one of the highest carbon polluters per capita in the world it would seem to me a folly to increase our population further.For example if we can achieve a 40% reduction in our per capita emissions by 2050 and our population increases by 60% our net overall reduction would be only 4% this would not help the world. Along with this we also get more congested cities, more sewage/nutrients polluting the seas, more deforestation,more loss of productive farmland and more stress on our meagre water resources. The only positive is it will make it easier for Mr Rudd to pay off his massive deficit.

What Does Science Say About The Safe Climate Bill?

Hi There,

I commend the Greens senators for their morally principled position on the CPRS and other issues the Australian media continually ignore in their two-party state frame of mind, and I do notice that the Rudd government specifically repudiated any suggestion of negotiation with the Greens in favour of the Climate Change skeptics like Andrew Robb and Wilson Turkey (sorry, Tuckey!)

But I must say, even with the Safe Climate Bill, I can see how the Continue Polluting Regardless Scheme is still being adhered too, albeit in a much wiser form.

What does science say about the idea of "trading" permits and "controlling the carbon market"? Here's what I read at a magazine called "State Of Nature" about the global climate change protests recently held by 350.org around the globe in the lead-up to Copenhagen:

""Climate Scientist, Dr. Brenda Ekwurzel with the Union for Concerned Scientists said, "Unfortunately, a reduction in CO2 emissions still leads to growth in CO2 in the atmosphere. Only the complete elimination of CO2 emissions would lead to a slow reduction in CO2 in the atmosphere over the next century." So if we assume that 350.org is aiming to cut emissions and not atmospheric greenhouse gases, they are way off the mark.""

It turns out that there is a half-life of 800 years for Carbon in the atmosphere. That means we are still paying the price for emissions in the pre-Industrial revolution era. In many ways, the lunatics are in control of the asylum and their usual two-party state politics, played out in so-called "liberal" media like SBS and ABC, treat the issue of Carbon Reduction as something that's a solution, or at least an effective harm reduction.

Ah! A Safe Climate Bill! As I say, very principled, but ignored by the bosses media and to be frank, it might take another 800 years to get over the way we have treated this country and planet for the last 221 years/800 years!

Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)

Cleaner Energy - Yes!
Cleaner Air - Yes!
Cleaner Water - Yes!
Increase/Maintain Biodiversity - Yes!
Plant more trees -Yes!

But AGW - No!
therefore ETS - No!
CPRS - No!

We need to think outside the IPCC square on Global Warming...

Yes it has warmed since 1850... which is in itself a misleading start point for the IPCC to use as it coincides with the end of the Little Ice Age where temperatures were below the earth's former averages.

The last decade has seen Global temperature trends level if not decrease slightly (undisputed science on both sides of the debate). Sunspot activity is at an all time low (also undisputed)

Then there's the IPCC Chairman... which if true is all rather scary!
Dr Pachauri, often presented as a scientist (he was even once described by the BBC as “the world’s top climate scientist"), was a former railway engineer with a PhD in economics....?

Dr Pachauri has reportedly established an astonishing worldwide portfolio of business interests with bodies which have been investing billions of dollars in organisations dependent on the IPCC’s policy recommendations.
These outfits include banks, oil and energy companies and investment funds heavily involved in ‘carbon trading’ and ‘sustainable technologies’, which together make up the fastest-growing commodity market in the world, estimated soon to be worth trillions of dollars a year.
Today, in addition to his role as chairman of the IPCC, Dr Pachauri occupies more than a score of such posts, acting as director or adviser to many of the bodies which play a leading role in what has become known as the international ‘climate industry’. It is remarkable how only very recently has the staggering scale of Dr Pachauri’s links to so many of these concerns come to light, inevitably raising questions as to how the world’s leading ‘climate official’ can also be personally involved in so many organisations which stand to benefit from the IPCC’s recommendations.

The IPCC is just another form of selective globalisation by stealth!

So, outside the square... my suggestions are:

1.) 150% R&D tax breaks for energy companies working outside the square, renewables, solar, wind, wave, even, dare I say it, Nuclear! Yes NUCLEAR - Even James Hansen, arguably the world's most famous climate scientist, is prone to shouting from the rooftops. Even he believes that any sensible US climate strategy has to include nuclear power.

2.) If you still think Carbon is te culprit... A 5 or 10 year tax break (and I mean a 100% tax break) for the first Energy Company supplying more than a token contribution to the power grid with a purely self contained zero carbon output (by zero I mean no offsetting in planting trees unless they do it onsight and maintain them themselves - any other offsetting is just a moronic concepts and readily open to scams and fly-by-nights). I followed a link starting at a goverment website the other day and arrived at a Carbon Offset company where the only Auditing on display was a single CPA in Gladseville or somewhere equally non-reassuring? You have to be kidding! So after the trees are planted this CPA goes out and makes sure they are being watered and still alive? Counterproductive carbon-wise I would think (checking the trees I mean)? Why don't we all just buy shares in Paper Mills, they grow trees, and sequester the carbon in paper! It was only a decade ago that they were under fire for ecological reasons, in fact they still are by the likes of this party and other eco-terrorists... and 3 decades ago we were going to be living in a paperless office by the turn of the century! Additionally 3 decades ago, there was a tax incentive for using recycled paper... how many things do politicians have to get wrong before they start to think and debate some of this moronic legislation?

3.) Free Public Transport - wouldn't that take the pressure off the roads and put money back in the bank from reducing infrastructure waste on highways that are always built too small over too long a period and too late! Just think how much Oil we wouldn't need to import. Those still preferring to drive would churn out half the pollution (note... pollution - not carbon specifically) from not sitting in traffic jams for most of their trip!

4.) Support for Buy Australian and Buy Local would save billions of pollution miles being racked up importing fruit and other commodities we should be growing or manufacturing here! Not to mention the balance of trade, more local entrepreneurs = more businesses = more employment = less centrelink payments = less mental issues = less hospital costs = less burden on the tax payer = sharing the pain! It could and should be argued that the Global Economy is the worst thing to ever happen pollution wise!

5.) Tax breaks for companies that reduce their REAL energy consumption based on turnover or whatever yard stick treasury might come up with... again... no offsetting tree planting rubbish - means efficiency - make a note... a carrott, not a stick approach again?

6.) Incentives for transport companies to share interstate routes in a way that there is ALWAYS A BACKLOAD! I mean really, how hard is that! If we ever get this broadband thing happening, it should be even easier for transport companies to communicate... better still, ever thought of putting more freight on the trains, and offering huges incentives to do so!

Seffo
Climate Realist

Your slip up concerning farmers not being included in ETS tarrif

You laugh at Mr Abbots "plant 20 million trees" while you missed the opportunity of demanding that the Farmers should plant a tree for every domestic animal on their property in exchange for being excused tariffs.