Playing carbon catch-up
The revolution in low carbon energy technology is underway, but most of the western world is still tens-of-trillions of dollars, and a great deal of policy-making, behind the pace.
You must be logged in to read this article
Not a member yet? Register today ›
Business Spectator is available on all of your devices so you can access the latest news and commentary where and how you like
Register now ›
Already a member? Sign in here
- Log in to post comments
Comments on this article
Comments PolicyYou write: 'A carbon price is the first stop, to avoid locking in inefficient, carbon-intensive technologies'.
(See Playing carbon catch-up, July 6)
Should we not also be wary of locking in inefficient, non-carbon-intensive technologies?
Tony, that's a good point (see "An inefficient alternative", Conversation contribution, July 6). Which is why a blanket carbon price is a good way to reduce emissions. It means that a lot of attention will be paid by the market to improve efficiency of non-carbon-intensive technologies, or selecting the most efficient ones available at any given time.
Limiting non-carbon investment to narrow areas selected by government bureaucrats is, as you suggest, not a good idea, as it requires them to pick a runner in what will be an interesting race over the next few decades.
"...leading to a new age of electrification." (See Playing carbon catch-up, July 6).
With such optimism in such poorly advanced infant renewable technologies, it sounds more like we're headed for an age of de-electrification.
If the electricity price rises we are currently having is termed 'catch up', I wouldn't like to see what catching up actually entails.
Whatever we do, we should avoid the expensive ETS implemented in NZ. (See Playing carbon catch-up, July 6).
The scheme does not help the environment one iota, but will make traders and polluters wealthy.
There is no incentive to do anything positive for the environment.
The NZ ETS is considered by all to be an "Emperor's New Clothes Tax'.
Bill Koutalianos implies that an expansion of electrification is not possible if we rely on renewable technologies. (De-electrification, Conversation contribution, July 6).
Quite so! However the report does also recommend nuclear, which would certainly fill the gap.
To that end, we need to vote for pollies with enough courage to suggest nuclear.
Instead of locking in artificially high feed-in tariffs, we need a stiff carbon tax, so that non-carbon technologies can out-compete carbon, then compete with each other, to unsubsidised efficiency.
Among the new technologies we need to see emerge, is the synthesis of transport fuels/energy, which will become an increasing concern to remote Australia as diesel gets priced out of reach.