THE Rudd Government is prepared to stare down a demand to compensate power producers for the effects of the carbon trading scheme foreshadowed in its review of climate change policy.
Power producers say that without structural assistance the value of their assets will fall sharply and investors will be reluctant to commit to new plants, causing power shortages.
The Australian, 'No to carbon payout claims'
SINCE May 2002, when interest rates again started to rise, home loans in Australia have grown to about a trillion dollars today. Business borrowing has now passed $700 billion.
Were interest rates 3 per cent lower today, as they were in 2002, the national annual interest bill would be about $50 billion less. And although there may now be signs of changing buyer behaviours, such sustained lifts in interest costs have had little observable impact upon the appetites of households and businesses for debt, so far.
In the same period, petrol costs have increased by about 10 cents a litre per year. Were petrol prices the same today as in 2002, the national fuel bill would be $25 billion lower each year. Yet we are buying more cars, travelling further and using more petrol than ever before even as petrol prices continue to lift.
The Australian, 'Helping neighbours is key to cuts'
STRIKING greenhouse gas reduction deals with big developing countries, particularly our trading partners, might be a better method of dealing with climate change than pursuing a plan focused on imposing increasing costs on domestic energy users.
Writing in the opinion page of The Australian today, leading corporate figure Ziggy Switkowski questions whether relying solely on a gradual build-up of energy costs is the most effective strategy for achieving reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
Dr Switkowski's entry into the debate comes as the Rudd Government formulates Canberra's response to climate change, with its adviser Ross Garnaut arguing that the planned carbon-trading scheme should not compensate coal-fired power stations.
The Australian, Greenhouse deals 'beat carbon trading'
Reminder:New Paper from the Virtual World: Stabilizing Climate Requires Near-Zero Emissions
No thats just a fact. Its just a simple fact on account of the latant heat released when water-gas turns into water-solid.
See you are no scientist Luke. You never could be.
Ok?
So you are a science-WORKER!!!
Whereas the Doctor you ludicrously affect to criticise is a SCIENTIST.
Of course the distinction is likely beyond your ken. And thats really just another example of the problem I speak thereof.
Water vapour as oceans sweating eh. Thanks we'll get back to you. Just don't move. We'll call. Promise.
And next time please campaign heavily. Spend heaps.
I made it pretty clear I wasn't going to campaign this time around. In the first place I've got to lose a few pounds. And that just from my face.
But I don't consider the main problem being the politicians in any case. Yes its true that they are generally rotten people up to no good. But its a system dominated by non-defense taxeater. And so to correct matters there is no substitute for mass-sackings.
I have you on record on this site Luke?
You are supposed to be a scientist who goes where the evidence falls. Are you now willing to concede?
I mean you didn't have the evidence in the first place. And an objective view of the situation would have told us the overall feedback would have to be strongly negative. But now Jennifer comes back from New York with news of the direct evidence.
Is it not long past due that you conceded and admitted that I was right and you were wrong?
After all I had worked out what Jennifer has just reported INDUCTIVELY:
"WATER VAPOUR AS THE OCEANS SWEATING.
I would say that we need a massive increase in the planetary heat budget. Since I view water vapour as akin the the oceans “sweating”.
So we don’t want a static picture of spectroscopy to tell us why the water vapour goes up and down. Rather we want a narrative which explains why the earth itself, right down to the core, starts gaining and losing energy. And it is the upper oceans specifically, that we need to be warm in order to produce all this water vapour......."
http://graemebird.wordpress.com/2007/05/20/the-goddard-institute-the-curse-of-the-lone-paradigm/
Come on Luke. Time to concede to your betters. Than I'll stop clogging up this blog again.
Probably only for people who need overtime like GMB. What happened in the election after all your bragging anyway - piked out we assume?
There has to be a mass-sacking movement on the go. Mass-sacking no redundancy. We've seen what taxeaters get up to when they think they can get away with it. We don't need to see any more.
Now that the fraud has been exposed to more people we have to get with the program of nuclear and coal-liquification. Because you cannot be truly free without access to cheap energy.
Also, that article quoting Switkowski. Surely Ziggy is aware that the PRIMARY reason for having a scheme like emissions trading is to find least cost abatement? If an international trading regime is set up, then it would bo both possible and sensible for Australia to contribute to reducing emissions by funding cheap and effective projects overseas, and retaining the credits.
Hi talk about 'deals' seems like a great way to either evade responsibility, or ensure that the solutions we come up with are a result of the govt trying to pick winners instead of the market deciding what is best.
Here's an interesting anecdote/piece of gossip i've encountered a few times in my work:
Hazelwood power station is an example of a big, old Victorian brown coal power station, must be near the end of its life.
I heard that some old power stations could be being kept up and running til emissions trading was brought in, in the hope that the Government would bestow upon it a certain number of emissions permits for free, instead of running an auction process so that the power companies have to buy an allocation of permits.
IF, say, a power station like Hazelwood is bestowed with permits or compensation by the government at no cost, it can then be shut down, and the power company would proft from millions in grandfathered emissions permits that they could sell, since they would not need to retain those permits themselves becaues the power station had been shut down.
Unfounded gossip to be sure. However, it seems commercially sensible and plausible, so i hope that in addition to being wary of the potential negative economic impacts on the power sector from emissions trading that get highlighted in articles like the Australian's "No to carbon payouts" article, that readers here will also be equally wary and skeptical of the motivations of the power producers themselves.
Australia can and should learn from the European ETS, where permits were handed out for nothing.
GMB - "To be sure we cannot go soft on people. We have to make sure post-modern, taxeating, global governance, energy-depriving, liars have to be taught a lesson."
So lets round us up a posse and get ourselves a hanging. cue duelling banjos
Nail them up I say - nail some sense into them.
"BRIAN: What'll they do to me?
BEN: Oh, you'll probably get away with crucifixion.
BRIAN: Crucifixion!
BEN: Yeah, first offense.
BRIAN: (incredulous) What?
BEN: Oh yeah. If we didn't have crucifixion this country would be in a right bloody mess I tell you.
BRIAN: (who can stand it no longer) Guard!
BEN: Nail 'em up I say!
BRIAN: (dragging himself over to the door) Guard!
BEN: Nail some sense into them!"
oooooo - we're all soooo scared. Blog to blog. Boy that's committment.
This is a bloke who wouldn't even run in Dobell and is worried about his overtime - have an AWA sandwich instead - you don't need overtime.
What a waddling armchair windbag. We have a referendum on uber noobs like you last year - get back in line or we'll nationalise ya.
But let's not that disturb our discussion - have you been to the Bruce Cobb school of alliteration perchance. And for the record - which one is you - http://www.best-horror-movies.com/images/shaun-of-the-dead-zombies-small.jpg