Advertisement

Greens stick their oar into emissions reductions

By 2 March 2012 68

The Greens’s Shane Rattenbury has announced the Green’s preferred path to reaching the ACT’s stated target of cutting greenhouse emissions by 40% in the next 8 years.

Of the 5 options outlined, the Greens favour Pathway 2, which combines building efficiency measures, sustainable transport, energy-from-waste and renewable energy.

“Pathway 2 comes closest to delivering the kind of structural changes needed to ensure a sustainable future for Canberrans,” Greens climate change spokesperson, Shane Rattenbury MLA, said today.

Commenting on the remaining four pathways, the Greens cautioned against over-reliance upon carbon offsetting and gas.

“Current offset markets are highly volatile and don’t deliver long-term structural change. It is ludicrous to suggest that we should meet our mitigation goals by offsetting alone, yet one of the Government’s proposed pathways does just that.

“As for gas, the Greens are concerned about the rise in gas’ popularity catalysing an increase in the environmentally damaging practice of coal seam gas (CSG) extraction.

“Gas features prominently in the strategy, but there is no mention of how the gas would be sourced. With the rapid growth of the CSG industry, and the serious questions it raises, the environmental benefits of gas are not as clear cut as many people think.

“No-one seems to have clicked that gas facilities’ 30-40 pay-back times are not compatible with ambitious 2020 cuts. Compare this with wind, which could become a zero-cost fuel within the next decade.

“Renewables are also not being given their full glory in any of the options. We have great potential for local large-scale and distributed renewable energy generation yet the Government seems to prefer gas.”

As such, the Greens are encouraging the Government to consider increasing its Renewable Energy Target to stimulate greater local renewable generation.

The Greens’ full submission is available.

Please login to post your comments
68 Responses to Greens stick their oar into emissions reductions
#1
breda11:42 am, 02 Mar 12

“Compare this with wind, which could become a zero-cost fuel within the next decade.”

Zero cost? You mean, pixies will build the windmills, fairies will pay the landowners, leprechauns will build the transmission infrastructure and elves will do the maintenance? And this invasion of supernatural beings will occur over the next ten years?

PS – windmills and associated infrastructure are built from concrete, steel and a range of other fabricated products. Regrettably, the manufacture of these products is not able to be done using wind power.

Idiots.

#2
Jethro1:17 pm, 02 Mar 12

breda said :

Idiots.

The same word could be used for people who deny the very vast scientific consensus on the causes of our changing climate.

#3
welkin311:32 pm, 02 Mar 12

Yes and the IPCC which pulls together the work of – “…the very vast scientific consensus on the causes of our changing climate.” – a consensus propped up by $Zillions of taxpayer funds – that same IPCC has made an art form for decades of trivializing the role of the sun in our climate.

#4
pajs1:54 pm, 02 Mar 12

welkin31 said :

Yes and the IPCC which pulls together the work of – “…the very vast scientific consensus on the causes of our changing climate.” – a consensus propped up by $Zillions of taxpayer funds – that same IPCC has made an art form for decades of trivializing the role of the sun in our climate.

You do realise that this is a myth? That we’ve been recently going through a period of lower total solar irradiance, while temperatures have increased?

Maybe have a look at what the science says, via http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

#5
Jim Jones2:34 pm, 02 Mar 12

welkin31 said :

Yes and the IPCC which pulls together the work of – “…the very vast scientific consensus on the causes of our changing climate.” – a consensus propped up by $Zillions of taxpayer funds – that same IPCC has made an art form for decades of trivializing the role of the sun in our climate.

Yep, it’s a scam. All the world’s scientists are engaged in a gigantic conspiracy against the rest of us.

The only ones that aren’t afraid to tell the truth are right-wing shock-jocks and people that work for oil companies.

#6
housebound2:46 pm, 02 Mar 12

Windmills don’t grow on trees. Someone has to make them.

Climate skeptics and believers alike should be able to agree on that one.

#7
Diggety3:34 pm, 02 Mar 12

““Renewables are also not being given their full glory in any of the options. We have great potential for local large-scale and distributed renewable energy generation yet the Government seems to prefer gas.”” -Shane Rattenbury

The reason Governments (ones taking a pragmatic approach) prefer gas over renewables is because:

- capital costs ($/kWe installed) are lower
- CO2 abatement costs ($/ton) are lower
- electricity costs ($/kWh) are lower

The Greens are clueless when it comes to the costs and capabilities of renewable technologies. Renewables (geothermal, wind. solar thermal & solar PV) need more development to address their drawbacks. And there is not much allocated for that in the carbon tax plan.

#8
Solidarity3:49 pm, 02 Mar 12

Gotta say it, yet again.

Nuclear.

#9
Ben_Dover3:55 pm, 02 Mar 12

Jim Jones said :

Yep, it’s a scam. All the world’s scientists are engaged in a gigantic conspiracy against the rest of us.

The only ones that aren’t afraid to tell the truth are right-wing shock-jocks and people that work for oil companies.

That’s a rather silly comment.

#10
Smeg4:26 pm, 02 Mar 12

I struggle to see how people can write this off as stupid. It seems to me that the greens simple look move us to a type 1 civilisation. Everyone stuck on the concept of fossil fuels (yes gas is a fossil fuel) is still living in a type 0 civilization and needs to wake up.

Gas is just a replacement for the issues of current fossil fuel it is destined for the same failures as oil and coal. ie making it a dirty place to live.

It’s the equivalent of stabbing yourself with a spoon rather than a knife. It will take a little longer but the outcome is the same and it probably hurts more.

Zero cost does not imply that it will cost nothing to make the power but that it will cost the government nothing to support it as it is currently subsidized to make it cost the same amount as fossil fuel. When enough research has actually been done this should equalize and make a situation where it costs the same or less. Due to no requirement other than minimal upkeep.

The issue most people fail to see is that new energy sources cost capital to build in the first place. Fossil fuel mines and power plants did in the beginning too. But that is old technology. We need new tech to push us into a type 1 civilization.

#11
welkin314:33 pm, 02 Mar 12

I wonder if the Greens realize that gas turbine power such as that proposed for Dalton is needed to safeguard smooth operation of the grid from the erratic contribution from wind power.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/dalton-fired-up-over-power-plant-20120226-1twmw.html#ixzz1nYClUu3G
The need for this compensation is growing as our great and wise Govt oversees the expansion of wind power.

#12
SnapperJack4:42 pm, 02 Mar 12

Jim Jones said :

welkin31 said :

Yes and the IPCC which pulls together the work of – “…the very vast scientific consensus on the causes of our changing climate.” – a consensus propped up by $Zillions of taxpayer funds – that same IPCC has made an art form for decades of trivializing the role of the sun in our climate.

Yep, it’s a scam. All the world’s scientists are engaged in a gigantic conspiracy against the rest of us.

The only ones that aren’t afraid to tell the truth are right-wing shock-jocks and people that work for oil companies.

Climate science? More like Climate Scientology.

#13
affordable5:16 pm, 02 Mar 12

all the worlds scientists ( 100% ? ) involved in a conspiracy, probably not, but I bet they are all after more funding as they sure got it right when they said no more rain a few years back when we were going to drink sewerage water

#14
Jethro5:34 pm, 02 Mar 12

Solidarity said :

Gotta say it, yet again.

Nuclear.

Solidarity – I’ve been open to the idea of nuclear. However, the more I have looked into it, the less convinced I’ve become. The financial costs of establishing nuclear simply don’t make it feasible. Not to mention, it isn’t actually carbon neutral.

#15
Jethro5:42 pm, 02 Mar 12

SnapperJack said :

Jim Jones said :

welkin31 said :

Yes and the IPCC which pulls together the work of – “…the very vast scientific consensus on the causes of our changing climate.” – a consensus propped up by $Zillions of taxpayer funds – that same IPCC has made an art form for decades of trivializing the role of the sun in our climate.

Yep, it’s a scam. All the world’s scientists are engaged in a gigantic conspiracy against the rest of us.

The only ones that aren’t afraid to tell the truth are right-wing shock-jocks and people that work for oil companies.

Climate science? More like Climate Scientology.

Yes. The culminated efforts of thousands of scientists over a period of decades, in which they rigorously collate and assess data and test AGW against other possible theories to explain our changing climate is EXACTLY the same as a cult started by a science fiction writer.

#16
Diggety6:27 pm, 02 Mar 12

Jethro said :

Solidarity said :

Gotta say it, yet again.

Nuclear.

Solidarity – I’ve been open to the idea of nuclear. However, the more I have looked into it, the less convinced I’ve become. The financial costs of establishing nuclear simply don’t make it feasible. Not to mention, it isn’t actually carbon neutral.

Ok, I’ll bite.

” The financial costs of establishing nuclear simply don’t make it feasible” – Jethro

Quote peer-reviewed sources and real world data.

“Not to mention, it isn’t actually carbon neutral.” – Jethro

Neither is a mouse. Work with a sense of proportion, Jethro.

#17
gazket6:37 pm, 02 Mar 12

Shane Rattenbury you are am idiot.

#18
260410:22 pm, 02 Mar 12

breda said :

“Compare this with wind, which could become a zero-cost fuel within the next decade.”

Zero cost? You mean, pixies will build the windmills, fairies will pay the landowners, leprechauns will build the transmission infrastructure and elves will do the maintenance? And this invasion of supernatural beings will occur over the next ten years?

Bingo.

Claiming that something is “zero cost” by ignoring capital costs is a new level of economic illiteracy, even for the Greens.

#19
Futureproof10:47 pm, 02 Mar 12

Jethro said :

breda said :

Idiots.

The same word could be used for people who deny the very vast scientific consensus on the causes of our changing climate.

One of those windmills you see at Lake George cost $8m each. Do you think the company installing them is doing if for fee? Greens have no idea about economics.

#20
Diggety3:44 pm, 03 Mar 12

I’ll gladly scrutinize the cost and capabilities of the Greens’ plan if they give the public more detail?

Are you there Al?

#21
Diggety4:11 pm, 03 Mar 12

(Apparently my friend is hilarious and decided to rant on my Riot account).

An energy debate? I actually don’t mind!

#22
Jethro4:56 pm, 03 Mar 12

Diggety said :

Jethro said :

Solidarity said :

Gotta say it, yet again.

Nuclear.

Solidarity – I’ve been open to the idea of nuclear. However, the more I have looked into it, the less convinced I’ve become. The financial costs of establishing nuclear simply don’t make it feasible. Not to mention, it isn’t actually carbon neutral.

Ok, I’ll bite.

” The financial costs of establishing nuclear simply don’t make it feasible” – Jethro

Quote peer-reviewed sources and real world data.

“Not to mention, it isn’t actually carbon neutral.” – Jethro

Neither is a mouse. Work with a sense of proportion, Jethro.

Diesendorf & Mudd 2008 – carbon footprint of a nuclear power plant using high grade ore is 10% of a coal fired plant. This does not include energy costs associated with the construction and decommission of power plants.

Insurance companies refuse to insure power plants, so the government also needs to cover the cost of insurance (Pittock 2009)

Nuclear electricity is estimated to cost 6.7 cents per kWh, compared to 5 cents for wind (Pittock 2009)

the IEA estimates a 400% increase in the use of nuclear produced electricity by 2050. This would require the construction of 32 power plants every year between now and then and would lead to a total reduction in CO2 emissions of 6%. Wind farms could generate the same power for 60% of the construction cost in far less time (Lovins and Sheik 2008)

#23
Diggety5:01 pm, 03 Mar 12

Wow, I’ve just gone through the Greens proposal.

Did a primary school kid write this? Gotta share this with friends!

#24
Diggety5:13 pm, 03 Mar 12

@ Shane Rattenbury

Come on the RiotACT and debate your plan before b/millions of taxpayers money is spent!

#25
IrishPete5:17 pm, 03 Mar 12

Solidarity said :

Gotta say it, yet again.

Nuclear.

what – weapons? war? waste? uranium mining?

which bit of “nuclear” do you want? just the good bits? wll, it comes as a package, and you don’t get to choose just the good bits.

IP

#26
shauno5:30 pm, 03 Mar 12

On thing is certain Solar or Wind is no where near and possibly 100 or more years off from any feasibility. Nuclear is the no brain solution for power and our next generation subs. Australia is the safest most stable country for it, plenty of ore and heaps of stable rock formations for a waste site which isnt much waste anyway and proven generation 3 heading to generation 4 systems.

#27
HenryBG5:39 pm, 03 Mar 12

Ben_Dover said :

Jim Jones said :

Yep, it’s a scam. All the world’s scientists are engaged in a gigantic conspiracy against the rest of us.

The only ones that aren’t afraid to tell the truth are right-wing shock-jocks and people that work for oil companies.

That’s a rather silly comment.

It’s a 100% spot-on comment.

Objectors to the content of IPCC reports are cranks, wound up by right-wing shock-jocks and industry lobby propaganda. Complete nutters.

Look at the idiot above, “trivializing the role of our sun in the climate” – the sun provides the vast, vast majority of the energy input to the Earth – how the @$% could that be “trivialised” by educated professionals conducting research on the climate?

It *really* isn’t rocket science: increased CO2 in the atmosphere has slowed down the rate at which heat from the sun which reaches the Earth can be re-radiated back into space. This means heat is accumulating on Earth until the Earth reaches a new equilibium temperature at which outgoing heat matches incoming heat. At that point, the Earth will stop warming. Where that point is, nobody knows exactly. What we do know is that the Earth is warming. The stratosphere is cooling as a result of less heat escaping. This is all basic science and people were guessing 200 years that this might start happening. They were right.

No idea why some people choose to try to trump these facts with a headful of nonsense and flat-earther-style ignorance, but it has something to do with psychology, and the lying lobbyists are exploiting it to the maximum by feeding the ignorant exactly the disinformation they need to continue in their reality-denying delusions.

#28
HenryBG5:44 pm, 03 Mar 12

breda said :

“Compare this with wind, which could become a zero-cost fuel within the next decade.”

Zero cost? You mean, pixies will build the windmills, fairies will pay the landowners, leprechauns will build the transmission infrastructure and elves will do the maintenance?

No. If you *read* what was written, you will see the greens are happy because wind-power’s *fuel* is zero-cost.

Which is 100% true.

Plus, it causes no emissions and doesn’t produce radioactive waste, which is another bonus in *my* book.

breda said :

Idiots.

Who are idiots? People who comment on a piece of writing without apparently having read and understood it?

Quite right.

#29
HenryBG5:46 pm, 03 Mar 12

Futureproof said :

Jethro said :

breda said :

Idiots.

The same word could be used for people who deny the very vast scientific consensus on the causes of our changing climate.

One of those windmills you see at Lake George cost $8m each. Do you think the company installing them is doing if for fee? Greens have no idea about economics.

No, but having installed them, they are getting their *fuel* for free, which is what thed Greens seem to be happy about.

Some people “have no idea” about reading comprehension.

#30
shauno6:09 pm, 03 Mar 12

Trivialising the role of the Sun on climate is not the issue infact the Sun probably plays a much greater role on climate than the co2 people believe. The technology to replace nuclear and coal power with numerous 2gw peak load solar power systems with base load round the clock power is not available. Just ask Germany.

Sponsors
RiotACT Proudly Supports
Advertisement
Copyright © 2014 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.