[...] initial blog entry

[...] initial blog entry (with a link to the PDF of Christine Milne’s press release) from the Greens - not surprisingly, they’re unimpressed by the patchwork [...]

I don't understand what all

I don't understand what all the fuss is about with regards to the aluminium industry with respect to GHG emissions trading.

The overwhelming majority of the GHG emissions attributed to the aluminium industry don't come directly from the aluminium smelters themselves, but instead they come from the coal fired power stations, since aluminium production requires large amounts of electricity, and therefore these emissions from the power stations are indirectly chalked up to the aluminum industry.

For these indirect GHG emissions, presumably the aluminium producers do not need to pay for GHG emissions permits, because the electricity generators are the ones producing the emissions, and passing the cost of GHG permits onto the users paying for their electricity, integrated into the price of electricity.

Of course, if they can get electricity cheaper in other countries (either in other industrialised countries with more environmentally sustainable electricity generation that isn't almost all coal, or in developing countries where they aren't paying for GHG emissions), then they will just move off shore if they find it economically competitive.

But we can quite easily slash the greenhouse gas emissions intensity of electricity generation here, too - aluminium smelters just use electricity, and it doesn't particularly matter what kind of environmentally sustainable electricity generation you're using to generate that electricity.

Anyway - it's very much a shame to see handouts given to coal-fired generation - it's clear that under such a scheme, nothing much will ever change.

What was it that Garnaut

What was it that Garnaut said about governments being politically incapable of addressing global warming?

Methinks it's time for civil disobedience...

Forest degradation and

Forest degradation and rangeland degradation do not get mentioned, but the Green Paper suggests that carbon sequestered in forest products should be included in an international climate change framework. This is a similar approach to Australia's reporting to the UNFCCC (which is slightly different to Kyoto accounting), where carbon sequestered in wood products is reported but emissions from forest degradation and rangeland degradation are not.

Green Paper, p.17:

The Government proposes that only forestry activities that are recognised in Australia’s Kyoto Protocol accounts will be eligible for inclusion in the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. If the scheme’s definition of forestry was different from the international definition, either the Government would have to purchase international units to ensure that our international obligations are met or the scheme cap would need to be tighter, transferring a larger burden to other sectors. The Kyoto rules exclude forests established prior to 1990 and treat the carbon stored in felled trees as if it had all been released into the atmosphere at that time. The Government believes these accounting rules are not an appropriate reflection of reality—carbon stored in wood products should be recognised in international agreements. Australia will, therefore, increase its efforts to influence changes to the international climate change framework in ways that reflect Australia’s particular circumstances, are based on science and provide appropriate incentives to reduce emissions.

Me no smiley, your site

Me no smiley, your site content mgmt system is too smart for its own good. Maybe you could get it a job with Penny Wong?

Wishin and Hopein Or

Wishin and Hopein

Or perhaps the ETS Green Paper should be called a Clayton’s paper, an ETS when you are not having an ETS.

Sarcasm apart, the two main outcomes of Penny Wong’s speech at the Press Club yesterday was, firstly the preservation of the Social Economic status quo in particular fossil fuel powered generation, hence the “wishin and hopein” for clean coal technology, buying time.

Secondly it would appear the government, as in “Public Service” and most probably the public services in other countries, are having great difficulty in modelling greenhouse economics. Coupled with political requirements from the personalities that impose the social specifications, departments may not have only blown the odd gasket on the cooling system of their super computer but also have caused hypertensive episodes in their personnel.

My guess is, that current modelling is based on conventional economic algorithms that approach the problem from the monetary economics side. Fundamentally this is a physics problem, in the last 300 years humans have one way ratcheted up the energy economy exponentially till we have hit the current limits. Deliberate or natural reduction in energy consumption causes immediate undesirable effects, energy is the reference vector.

When an analysis of the problem is made from the physics side describing energy as an economy and then converted onto the monetary side by accounting according to the rules of the energy economy, even at the level of fundamental principles a much clearer analysis can be made. Using such a basic analysis, given the time frame envisaged, ETS is likely to be a nail biting experience as far as predicted climate change is concerned unless it is draconian. To be equitable a more direct change of technology and lifestyle is needed supplemented by ETS.

The history of homo sapiens has been of continuous technological inventiveness and the most significant inventions have been those involving energy. Agriculture is perhaps the most well known change to human life style yet hunting and gathering still do exist both as recreation and for a very few a livelihood, change alters status but rarely extinction.

The current energy crisis and its eventual solution is no different to that energy crisis which brought about the industrial revolution. Wood ran out in England from population growth and ship building, leading to the very reluctant adoption of coal (considered fowl). The now deep coal mines flooded and the invention of steam engine came to the rescue. The industrial revolution was born and the social order changed with the current Capital and Labour politics we know today evolving. Many say that current Liberal and Labour politics are starting to parallel each other, it could be argued that the reason is the end of the industrial revolution era is approaching. The threat of return of a diversified energy economy as opposed to centralised (capital ownership) energy system threatens both Liberal and Labour ideologies.

Whatever, the outcome of the current debates and future polices, change will take place in the historical near future wether by man or forced directly by nature. Tying to preserve the present, in my opinion, is an exercise in futility.

[...] discussion thread on

[...] discussion thread on the Green Paper at Larvatus Prodeo with more links. See also Peter Martin, GreensBlog, and crikey. [...]

Good luck on that direct

Good luck on that direct action thing.
Most people (70% min.) of the population, are thinking less about this, now that they hear that excise is cut off petrol.
"Its cheaper now! Its cheaper now!"

That is likely, in my view, to lead to a slackening off of interest.

Direct action to 'get' people to think and act against their own interest and personal profit, gets squat all. Although a lot of inner city 20-somethings will be out there (like I was), but in the end, it will look like rich kids not understanding the hardships people are going through.

Meanwhile, an attack on Iran means that oil-based products & services will rise 50-100% within a week, and the sleepy will awake as uneducated about the true effect of this all.

Then my greenish friends, it will be time to start Operation Permaculture. People will need to eat (albeit 3 months before the tomatoes come up)

Oh well, easy going Australian ways will have to change. Just might involve a giant big wall.

For me, if the Govt had become more proactive in reorientating the ETS towards renewables, at least, my wall analogy may not be worth posting about. But, it looks like it is.

Good luck, Australia!

The plot thickens

Yesterday Penny Wong stated that the Government is prepared to consider alternatives to their carbon trading scheme. This is a seismic shift in position because previously calls were for input into the carbon trading scheme, not it's potential abandonment and whole new system considered. I sense a complete capitulation to the big end of town coming on, complete with face-saving carbon tax.

Interestingly BHP Biliton's Don Argus is amoungst those powerful business people now calling for the scraping of carbon cap and trade, and the imposition of universal carbon tax. Not sure what to make of this, except that without a cap, a tax would work in the major polluters favour.

Basically a simple carbon tax (no cap) would be business as usual, passing the tax on to consumers with no real incentive to reduce emissions. Sure there would be a temporary dampening of demand, but demand would bounce back all too soon.

The tax would favour the exporting multinationals as guaranteed the tax would not apply to exports "to enable us to compete in world markets".

Also the universal tax would spread the price to all goods and services equally, irrespective of the amount of carbon emissions, as it would be tied to economic activity. So a business in cyberspace would pay the same rate of tax as an aluminium smelter based on turnover or profit.

I suppose a carbon tax would be on profit and a large and complex multi layered business would be able to shuffle profits around and so minimise their exposure - that's it! Yes, a carbon tax on nett profit would enable a big business to virtually eliminate paying a carbon tax by moving legitimate business expenses around and between companies - OK so I'm a bit slow. Should have realised that this was the big end of town's way of avoiding liability and passing on the costs of their polluting habits - 'twas ever thus.

I'm sure the Greens are 'on to it', but be prepared for the cap and trade scheme being abandoned in favour of a 'simple' carbon tax. Then insist that it be a tax and cap. No matter the scheme, it is only the cap that will give certainty to carbon emission reduction. BHP Biliton will be able to shuffle it's funds around to it's shareholders content and the environments loss, but a cap on the companies emissions will see it clean up it's act.