Bob's Report

Straight from the Horse’s Mouth

If you think that the ACF comment is “only to be expected from a green source”, you might give more weight to findings published in the White Paper. Marian Wilkinson, the SMH’s environmental editor has reported (19/12/08) that modelling in the White Paper on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme “shows that there will be no significant reductions in carbon pollution from coal-fired power stations by 2020 if the Government sticks to a target of cutting emissions to 5% below 2000 levels.”

Minister for Climate Change and Water, Penny Wong, maintains that the “assistance measures” to polluting industries “have been designed to provide strong incentives for these industries to reduce their emissions; to adopt emissions-reducing technologies and processes, and to fully factor in the carbon price when considering new investment opportunities.”

What Can We Expect from the Electricity Generators?

The Australian electricity industry does not have an impressive record in investing in research and development. An Australia Institute analysis of figures released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in October 2008 shows that it spent only $79 million on R&D, including renewable energy, or less than 1% of the total value added by the industry. This contrasts unfavourably with the $3.78 billion, or 3.7% of its output that the manufacturing industry spent on research.

Most people would have expected that the electricity industry, that generates about 45% of Australia’s carbon emissions, would have been at the forefront of exploring lower emission and renewable technologies. After all, the threat of climate change has been looming for more than a decade.

Another Serious Flaw in the Emissions Trading Scheme ?

Richard Denniss, Director of the Australia Institute, has revealed a huge weakness in the proposed Emissions Trading Scheme, that has been acknowledged by a growing number of analysts over the last few weeks. His media release of 25/11/08 states that:

“When emissions trading comes in, every tonne of carbon dioxide saved by households will simply free up a tonne that can be used by industry. Installing solar hot water systems, driving smaller cars, and turning off the lights will not help the environment one bit. The only effect reductions in household energy will have is to free up pollution permits for the big polluting industries.”

The CPRS must be modified so reductions in household emissions benefit the environment instead of making it easier for industries to continue polluting.

(For a detailed explanation of Richard Denniss’s argument go to www.tai.org.au and type in Fixing the Floor in the ETS)