Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Chamberlains - complete legal services for business

Greens stick their oar into emissions reductions

By johnboy - 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.

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments
68 Responses to
Greens stick their oar into emissions reductions
31
HenryBG 6:27 pm
03 Mar 12
#

shauno said :

infact the Sun probably plays a much greater role on climate than the co2 people believe.

Do you have any idea how stupid your statement is?

You can’t study climate unless you start with the sun.
The sun is the source of (almost all) the energy that has to be taken into account when studying the climate.

There couldn’t possibly be any “greater role” than the sun – because its role is the greatest.

The idea that smart people with PhDs who’ve been studying this for decades have missed something that *you* (whoever you are) have thought of is completely laughable.

Report this comment

32
Simmo 6:41 pm
03 Mar 12
#

shauno said :

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.

Germany certainly isn’t going nuclear- From Wikipedia “Nuclear power in Germany accounted for 17.7% of national electricity supply in 2011, compared to 22.4% in 2010 [1).
On 30 May 2011, Germany formally announced plans to abandon nuclear energy completely within 11 years. “

Report this comment

33
Jethro 6:43 pm
03 Mar 12
#

HenryBG said :

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.

Very well said HenryBG.

And even if we didn’t have the certainty we do (which sits at something like >90%) any rationale consideration of risk management would see that reducing CO2 emissions is a no-brainer in terms of costs of changing to low emissions energy versus cost of continuing to pollute as usual.

Report this comment

34
Jethro 6:45 pm
03 Mar 12
#

shauno said :

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 thing is, Shuano, the sun is currently going through a solar minimum (ie. it is putting out less energy than it was 50 years ago) yet there is still warming. Warming is happening despite changes in the sun’s energy output, not because of it.

Report this comment

35
HenryBG 6:57 pm
03 Mar 12
#

Simmo said :

shauno said :

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.

Germany certainly isn’t going nuclear- From Wikipedia “Nuclear power in Germany accounted for 17.7% of national electricity supply in 2011, compared to 22.4% in 2010 [1).
On 30 May 2011, Germany formally announced plans to abandon nuclear energy completely within 11 years. “

Nuclear is one big confidence trick.

It’s immensely costly and can’t operate without massive government subsidy, including underwriting the insurance that the industry could never obtain commercially.

As for the waste it produces – it’s untreatable, therefore costs unknown, therefore conveniently left off the balance sheet, like many other of the costs of nuclear. At least they stopped dumping radioactive waste into the sea in drums like they used to. (Well, we think they’ve stopped doing that – but with such a record of secrecy, corner-cutting and dishonesty, who knows what they’re doing with their waste?).

Report this comment

36
breda 7:22 pm
03 Mar 12
#

Henry BG said:

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.
—————————————————————-
Henry, you have clearly graduated from the Greens’ School of Supernatural Economics.

Guess what. Coal is free too. We don’t have to pay anything for it’s existence – it is already there. But like with wind power, what we have to pay for is the infrastructure to transform it into energy.

The economics are that transforming wind into electricity costs about 4 times as much as transforming coal into electricity. Plus (listen carefully, because this is the bit the B. Ecology graduates keep ignoring) – coal delivers 24/7/365.

The either loony or dishonest claims of the Greens about wind also pretend that there are no ongoing costs, after cheerfully ignoring capital costs. The landowners want their rent each year. The windmills have to be serviced, as do the transmission lines feeding into the grid. The grid has to be managed so that erratic wind power doesn’t blow it up.

Apart from that, yeah, it’s free.

Idiots.

Report this comment

37
Jethro 7:47 pm
03 Mar 12
#

HenryBG said :

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.

To be fair HenryBG, renewables certainly become fairly cheap after construction, but there are ongoing costs, such as maintenance. The energy isn’t free, even if the ‘fuel’ (ie. the wind) is technically free. The inference from the report was that the energy is free.

Report this comment

38
Jethro 8:47 pm
03 Mar 12
#

breda said :

Henry BG said:

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.
—————————————————————-
Henry, you have clearly graduated from the Greens’ School of Supernatural Economics.

Guess what. Coal is free too. We don’t have to pay anything for it’s existence – it is already there. But like with wind power, what we have to pay for is the infrastructure to transform it into energy.

The economics are that transforming wind into electricity costs about 4 times as much as transforming coal into electricity. Plus (listen carefully, because this is the bit the B. Ecology graduates keep ignoring) – coal delivers 24/7/365.

The either loony or dishonest claims of the Greens about wind also pretend that there are no ongoing costs, after cheerfully ignoring capital costs. The landowners want their rent each year. The windmills have to be serviced, as do the transmission lines feeding into the grid. The grid has to be managed so that erratic wind power doesn’t blow it up.

Apart from that, yeah, it’s free.

Idiots.

I note you have quit with your denialism. Or are you just hiding the fact that you call people idiots but refuse to accept the findings of scientists from NASA, the science academies from each nation in the G8+5, plus pretty much every other reputable scientific institution?

Also, in all of your comments on this thread you have completely ignored the hidden costs of using coal fired power stations. The simple fact is, continuing to burn coal for electricity is going to cost far far more than what it will cost us to switch to renewables.

Yet you call people who want to shift to renewable energy idiots.

Report this comment

39
HenryBG 8:48 pm
03 Mar 12
#

Jethro said :

To be fair HenryBG, renewables certainly become fairly cheap after construction, but there are ongoing costs, such as maintenance. The energy isn’t free, even if the ‘fuel’ (ie. the wind) is technically free. The inference from the report was that the energy is free.

OK, I have 2 things to say about that:
1. recurring costs for Wind are so minor they are almost invisible. I really can’t remember the exact figure but something like 97% of the Total Cost of Ownership is up-front.

2. The Greens are snivelling idiots. Like all political parties in this country, they aren’t what it says on the cover. If they were really “Green”, they would be a conservative party, but they aren’t – they are a radical party – obsessed with compulsion and social engineering, diverted by idiotic fringe issues, they thoroughly deserve the derisive “watermelon” tag.
This is the party that isn’t embarrassed to pre-select the (ex-, supposedly) communist daughter of communist parents who were caught during the Vietnam War conducting visual observation of Australian troop shipping movements and caught reporting in to an Eastern Bloc embassy contact. The fact her parents weren’t put up against the wall and shot is bad enough, but allowing their equally Australia-hating daughter to sully Australian democracy is just…. naive?…..words fail me.

Report this comment

40
HenryBG 9:06 pm
03 Mar 12
#

breda said :

Guess what. Coal is free too. We don’t have to pay anything for it’s existence – it is already there. But like with wind power, what we have to pay for is the infrastructure to transform it into energy.

No, you have to pay to dig it up, you have to pay to transport it, then you have to pay to burn it, and then pay to cart away the waste. (And externalising the cost of pumping CO2 waste into the atmosphere will hopefuilly soon be a thing of the past.

Wind? It comes to the turbine all by itself at no cost and produces no waste. Free.

breda said :

The economics are that transforming wind into electricity costs about 4 times as much as transforming coal into electricity.

Liar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_cost_of_electricity_generated_by_different_sources
Coal = $94.8/MWh v. Wind = $97MWh
(And that’s with coal externalising the cost of dumping waste CO2 for free). ie, Wind is cheaper.

breda said :

Plus (listen carefully, because this is the bit the B. Ecology graduates keep ignoring) – coal delivers 24/7/365.

The wind blows 24/7. Somewhere.

In any case, coal cannot respond to spikes in demand. It cannot respond to troughs in demand. coal is totally unresponsive to the vagaries in demand.

This is why – now listen carefully, you obviously have a lot to learn – we have a mix of generating technologies, because one mode (eg coal) alone would be completely ineffective.

breda said :

The either loony or dishonest claims of the Greens about wind also pretend that there are no ongoing costs, after cheerfully ignoring capital costs. The landowners want their rent each year. The windmills have to be serviced, as do the transmission lines feeding into the grid. The grid has to be managed so that erratic wind power doesn’t blow it up.

(Same link as above:)
Coal = $24.3/MWh
Wind = $0.0/MWh

Ooh look – Wind uses free fuel! How cool is that?

breda said :

Apart from that, yeah, it’s free.

Idiots.

Quite.

After you’ve finished smearing yourself in glory here, do you plan on staking yourself out over a convenient ant-nest somewhere?

Or is Alan Jones re-runs all evening?

Report this comment

41
Gungahlin Al 10:05 pm
03 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.

It is impossible to have a logical debate with people who learn their science from Alan Jones and Alan Bolt. I am embarrassed on behalf of the august Society of Alans.

Report this comment

42
HenryBG 10:36 pm
03 Mar 12
#

Gungahlin Al 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.

It is impossible to have a logical debate with people who learn their science from Alan Jones and Alan Bolt. I am embarrassed on behalf of the august Society of Alans.

I know “Bolt” rhymes with “Dolt”, but I’m pretty sure the “A.” stands for “Andrew”.

Clearly you’re a couple of glasses ahead of me at this stage tonight, Al.

Report this comment

43
breda 11:17 pm
03 Mar 12
#

Henry said:

breda said :

The economics are that transforming wind into electricity costs about 4 times as much as transforming coal into electricity.

Liar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_cost_of_electricity_generated_by_different_sources
Coal = $94.8/MWh v. Wind = $97MWh
(And that’s with coal externalising the cost of dumping waste CO2 for free). ie, Wind is cheaper.

—————————————————————————-
Henry, you just demonstrated again that you are innumerate as well as economically illiterate.

Assuming that the Wikipedia table is correct, it does not support your argument. It does not tell us what the cost per unit of electricity produced it, nor does it purport to. You do not seem to have noticed the column that says ‘capacity factor’ – which shows that the capacity factor of coal is almost 3 times greater than wind for the same cost. You just quoted the last column, because it gave you the answer you believed to be true. Add in the subsidies, and we are looking at around 4x the cost for wind versus coal – and minus knowing that when we flick a switch, the lights will actually go on.

Not to mention that the conventional power plants have to be built, maintained and always on for when the wind isn’t blowing. And for this you think we should build thousands of taxpayer subsidised industrial monstrosities all over the countryside?

Report this comment

44
shauno 11:34 pm
03 Mar 12
#

Gungahlin Al 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.

It is impossible to have a logical debate with people who learn their science from Alan Jones and Alan Bolt. I am embarrassed on behalf of the august Society of Alans.

Is it possible to have a sensible debate with greens who seem to quote the standard mantra and attack the man instead of the science. I came from a back ground of Geophysics and Geology I dont need greens telling me I get all my ideas from Alan Jones. As has been the case over the last few years the Greens and Labor have been attacking the man and while doing so expose the great scam and will bring the labor party to a screaming heap at the next election. No need to panic people the Earth has come though 4.5 billion years of climate change way colder and way hotter then now. We will still prosper and populate the Solar System and the Galaxy. We are far from done but we could be if you believe Bob And his communist cohorts.

Report this comment

45
Jethro 1:21 am
04 Mar 12
#

shauno said :

Is it possible to have a sensible debate with greens who seem to quote the standard mantra and attack the man instead of the science….

We are far from done but we could be if you believe Bob And his communist cohorts.

Yep… no attacking the man in there. All you need to do is throw out the word communist and the vast scientific consensus on climate change is apparently destroyed in an instant.

I note that you never responded to a single piece of evidence regarding climate science that was put forward. (eg. my comments on the current solar minimum)

“the Earth has come though 4.5 billion years of climate change way colder and way hotter then now.”

Yes. And advanced civilisation has existed solely in the last 8000 years – a time when climate has been relatively stable and conducive to agriculture and so on. Causing rapid changs (ie. >2 degrees in a single century) is going to cause massive upheavals to the ecosystems and environmental systems which we rely upon for our survival.

Report this comment

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2016 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.

Search across the site