1 - 15 of 580 articles
next 
We need a green solution, not ETS
Charlotte M
9 Feb 2010 12:54 PM
instead of having an ETS/climate change policy, we need an environmental strategy. All this money going into the ETS should be going towards finding better, sustainable solutions while teaching people how to care for the environment and protect resources.
(See Carbon copy, February 2). Why tax us for something we don't know we're using?
An ETS is a poorly conceived policy and no political party has a viable and credible plan anyway. The main aim shouldn't be to cut emissions and tax the public. It should be about finding solutions now to cut back on emissions for the future. How will a tax achieve that? People won't stop their usage habits just because they have to pay extra. Most people are unaware of how they are even creating emissions!
This is all rather embarrassing for Australia, actually.
Goodbye, Tunrbull
Robert Garven
9 Feb 2010 11:50 AM
I don't believe any of the rhetoric coming from Wong and Rudd over their ETS scheme.
(See Turnbull blasts coalition's climate plan, February 8).
We the people need a full and open debate about this whole scheme as it will be the taxpayer paying for everything in the long run.
As far as I am concerned, Turnbull can stay with Labor when he crosses the floor – and don't come back!
Keep up the good work Abbott on making this government more accountable on this issue.
Carbon's spinning wheel
Paul Coffey
9 Feb 2010 10:54 AM
Lots of Labour voters will blindly follow Rudd's ETS to the end's of the earth (which he may just create from a financial point of view).
If Kevin is to be remembered for one thing and one thing only it will be for his superlative mastery of rhetorical spin.
Turnbull's last stand
mike yao
8 Feb 2010 2:34 PM
This shows Malcolm is just a big boy, now becoming a bad one. (See Turnbull blasts coalition's climate plan, February 8.) It sounds like the last bite. The likely positive reponse from Labor will certainly further ruin his political reputation. However, everyone seems could hear Abbott's response when he is actually keeping quiet. Here comes less is more.
The magic and misdirection of numbers
Alan Anderson
8 Feb 2010 2:12 PM
Tony Abbott released his alternative greenhouse gas carbon reduction proposals a week ago. At first glance it looked well thought out it. However the more you think it through the obvious flaw in it becomes evident. It is based on emissions intensity. Now that's clever. The questions that arent offered are these: Is the intensity measured at the organisation Level or is it measured at the 'unit of production level'. With the surety of 'business as usual' and the need to increase power generation over the next 10 years it appears that an oganisation can establish a new generating plant with the same intensity level as existing plants without any impost even though absolute levels of emissions will increase. If the emissions are measured at the 'unit of production' level the generator can continue to increase production, so long as the additional production does not increase the intensity level.
Known sceptics
Michael Salvatico
8 Feb 2010 9:34 AM
Max Rheese and his crew are sceptics. (See Rudd government urged to dump ETS, February 8).
They have been against the ETS from day one. The phrase a "coalition of academics" implies an air of neutrality, but it is not so.
Any Google Search on Max will show that.
What more would you expect them to say about a solution to reduce carbon emissions?
Equal pain
Ross Trevena
7 Feb 2010 6:07 PM
Of course we'll have to pay more for electricity, but the producers need to share the pain as well. (See Gas switch would require 20% price hike, February 7).
It's not about (the Chinese owned) TruEnergy keeping its balance sheet and profits intact.
These peanuts need to be told in the strongest possible terms – TruEnergy has made money out of the Latrobe Valley and if the company was too stupid to assess the political risk of climate change policy when they bought the assets – tough.
Time for gas solution
Ken Wise
5 Feb 2010 4:55 PM
Robert,
I think Kevin Rudd will eventually do what you say as he is not afraid to take personal charge.
(See, Gas game changer, February 4).
But why stop there? If you include WA, this country has so much gas it makes no sense to run cars on petrol at all.
We could phase out petrol, and save ourselves money, and help the environment at the same time.
A new plan of attack
Michael Rahme
5 Feb 2010 1:25 PM
True – but without trying to show too much bias towards Labour, Kevin Rudd will have to take these points into consideration and alter his attack and possibly the ETS.
(See, Gas game changer, February 4).
I believe he will and therefore will still vote for Labour, as Tony Abbott, Barnaby Joyce, and the crew are simply dangerous and haven't won my trust. And on the flip side, Santos chief executive David Knox is putting his nuts on the line if the Cooper basin cannot realistically deliver what he is claiming and at that cost.
It is so interesting to watch the big boys of energy and resources so delicately attack the ETS and lobby through all their forms of contacts and friends. I love puppet shows.
The one to save us all
Greg Jones
5 Feb 2010 12:44 PM
Gas, oil, uranium and coal are all power generators that will be made redundant in three months when a new technology that is currently being developed is announced.
(See, Gas game changer, February 4).
Gas and coal will be 'saved' by the same developers utilising a new coal/gas to liquid fuel technology some eight times more efficient than the current Fischer Tropsche process.
The lights are on, but Sarkozy's not home
Lintong Feng
5 Feb 2010 9:30 AM
When reading the following: "French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, raised the prospect of a 'carbon frontier tax' which could be imposed on imports from countries that failed to introduce controls on greenhouse gas emissions. Such a tax would punish developing countries that are reluctant to force their factories to adopt expensive anti-pollution measures."
(See Inching towards a trade war, February 5.)
the French President is such an idiot! Most developing countries have not demanded rich countries, the heavy polluters in per capita terms, to pay for their pollution and damage to the climate that affects everyone, and ask for compensations by those polluters.
There is also a heavy account of historical debts by rich countries in this field.
So what is Sarkozy thinking about by enlightening developing countries?
There is a practical also easy solution to the currency problem.
The US government would have to guarantee the real value in Chinese currency for Chinese official holding of the US bonds.
Everyone understands that any appreciation of the Chinese currency against the US dollar now means the Chinese will lose in the value of its holding of the US bonds.
The US should not and cannot make fool of the Chinese leaders in such a stunt by demanding they make a direct loss by their currency appreciation. That is just a game too crude and lack of intelligence. Once that is done, the Chinese is likely to be more willing to allow its currency to appreciate. Otherwise, the Chinese government would have a huge political problem with the Chinese public, given that any issues can further exacerbate the unsatisfaction that they already have.
A bigger market will determine cap and trade
Hugh McGown
5 Feb 2010 8:23 AM
Giles Parkinson has missed the point. (See Carbon copy, February 2.)
The problem with a carbon market is that it depends on a set of rules such as those he refers to in the LULUCF sector. These were established at Kyoto and refined in various conferences since. They have as much baggage as any other inter governmental agreement reflecting the domestic circumstances of the parties.
Following Copenhagen and the imminent closure of the first commitment period under Kyoto in 2012, we are faced with the prospect that the whole legal basis of the UNFCCC the Kyoto Protocol could be shelved with new rules or few rules replacing the Protocol. Then there are the mistakes made under the RECS program. At another scale the lack of international co-operation will ensure carbon leakage even if we could sort out the huge problems with the Clean Development Mechanism (an offset tool under Kyoto). Australia will suffer if an ETS is introduced here and we cannot purchase offsets on an international market.
I suspect that there is a bigger market than cap and trade that will determine this issue.
It has been my observation that proponents of cap and trade generally have less to lose than those that oppose it.
Gas is not the one stop solution
Andrew Davies
4 Feb 2010 10:26 PM
Robert,
You seem to think that Australia won't spend the billions for nuclear power.
(See, Gas game changer, February 4).
Gas should only be a stop gap as it still pollutes while wave, solar and molten salt, etc, are brought to a commercial scale.
Maybe the future will mean smaller power stations strategically located around the country and that would be better as it would save a lot of the current transmission losses.
UCG being ignored, but it's cheaper!
Neil North
4 Feb 2010 5:34 PM
The other electricity source which is ignored is use of UCG (Underground Coal Gasification) to produce electricity. http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/santos-david-knox-australian-energy-and-carbon-cli-pd20100204-2C6UL?OpenDocument&src=srch
Cougar Energy (CXY) in an ASX statement said: "The Kingaroy UCG site will provide competitive base load electricity to the Australian domestic market given that the costs of production are about half the cost of natural gas electricity."
At half cost of natural gas, it is also cheaper than black coal. In addition it has around 20 per cent less CO2 than best practice black coal and 65 per cent less than brown coal.
CXY is in planning stages for first 400 MW power station, LNC and CMX are heading down the same track.
Why subsidise foreign owned rust buckets when UCG is available and cheaper?
Who will make money?
Wim Schneider
4 Feb 2010 7:59 AM
Could you please clarify something for me? It seems to me that at the end of the day, both Rudd and Abbott's schemes will be paid for by the tax payer (see Abbott's great big axe, February 3).
With the ETS, the only people to make any money will be the carbon traders.
1 - 15 of 580 articles
next