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
#61
Thumper2:11 pm, 05 Mar 12

Diggety said :

The simple fact is, if you are serious about addressing climate change, you must consider advanced nuclear reactors as a component in the energy supply.

That is why The Greens have the least realistic climate change/energy policy.

I would add that, if one is serious about addressing climate change, one would also look at population control as this is the proverbial elephant in the room.

#62
Diggety2:37 pm, 05 Mar 12

Thumper said :

Diggety said :

The simple fact is, if you are serious about addressing climate change, you must consider advanced nuclear reactors as a component in the energy supply.

That is why The Greens have the least realistic climate change/energy policy.

I would add that, if one is serious about addressing climate change, one would also look at population control as this is the proverbial elephant in the room.

As much as I loathe the concept, and cringe at thought of implementation, yes I agree.

However, it’s probably not the highest priority in Australia’s case. For now.

#63
HenryBG2:38 pm, 05 Mar 12

Thumper said :

Diggety said :

The simple fact is, if you are serious about addressing climate change, you must consider advanced nuclear reactors as a component in the energy supply.

That is why The Greens have the least realistic climate change/energy policy.

I would add that, if one is serious about addressing climate change, one would also look at population control as this is the proverbial elephant in the room.

The Greens abandoned population control as soon as Paulin Hansen jumped up with the same idea.

Additionally, it doesn’t fit with their new-found love of illegal immigrants scamming refugee places in their thousands.

#64
HenryBG2:42 pm, 05 Mar 12

Diggety said :

Insurance
The insurance myth is exactly that, a myth. You can read up on that here.

.

OK – please name the insurance company which is paying the full cost of cleaning up Fukushima, and compensating affected property owners.

Hmmm?

So much for your “myth”. Nuclear does not, and can not get insurance because every commercial insurance entity realises the risk is uninsurable.
This is why the government has to underwrite it, which is a massive subsidy, the cost of which takes the cost of nuclear energy waaaay beyond any other reasonable means of producing power.

#65
Ben_Dover2:51 pm, 05 Mar 12

Jim Jones said :

Wah wah wah everyone is calling me names wah wah wah the scientists are being mean to me with all their ‘facts’ wah wah wah

Well there you go, how can one argue with such a well thought out and adult response.

#66
Diggety2:51 pm, 05 Mar 12

HenryBG said :

Diggety said :

Insurance
The insurance myth is exactly that, a myth. You can read up on that here.

.

OK – please name the insurance company which is paying the full cost of cleaning up Fukushima, and compensating affected property owners.

Hmmm?

So much for your “myth”. Nuclear does not, and can not get insurance because every commercial insurance entity realises the risk is uninsurable.
This is why the government has to underwrite it, which is a massive subsidy, the cost of which takes the cost of nuclear energy waaaay beyond any other reasonable means of producing power.

Please read the article before commenting on it Henry!

#67
HenryBG3:09 pm, 05 Mar 12

Diggety said :

HenryBG said :

Diggety said :

Insurance
The insurance myth is exactly that, a myth. You can read up on that here.

.

OK – please name the insurance company which is paying the full cost of cleaning up Fukushima, and compensating affected property owners.

Hmmm?

So much for your “myth”. Nuclear does not, and can not get insurance because every commercial insurance entity realises the risk is uninsurable.
This is why the government has to underwrite it, which is a massive subsidy, the cost of which takes the cost of nuclear energy waaaay beyond any other reasonable means of producing power.

Please read the article before commenting on it Henry!

The mistake made by its blinkered and rabidly pro-nuclear author is to compare disasters such as “an oil spill” with Fukushima, and the mess created by burning coal, with the mess at Yucca Mountain.

There is no comparison. The taxpayer cannot afford nuclear – it is far, far too costly which is why the industry tries to hide all these costs.

What’s the cost of a “disaster” involving a wind turbine? A solar array?

If you want to compare apples with apples, you include all the costs of nuclear, and that includes:
– 100% cost of risk, not just a token amount and a “the government can take care of the rest”
– 100% cost of permanently dealing with radioactive waste – and unknown, seeing as there is no way to do it.
– 100% cost of decommissioning, currently a cost which is ignored with the tab picked up by thre taxpayer.

You nuke-spruikers are not getting any more convincing with repetition.

#68
Diggety3:46 pm, 05 Mar 12

HenryBG said :

The mistake made by its blinkered and rabidly pro-nuclear author is to compare disasters such as “an oil spill” with Fukushima, and the mess created by burning coal, with the mess at Yucca Mountain.

There is no comparison. The taxpayer cannot afford nuclear – it is far, far too costly which is why the industry tries to hide all these costs.

What’s the cost of a “disaster” involving a wind turbine? A solar array?

If you want to compare apples with apples, you include all the costs of nuclear, and that includes:
- 100% cost of risk, not just a token amount and a “the government can take care of the rest”
- 100% cost of permanently dealing with radioactive waste – and unknown, seeing as there is no way to do it.
- 100% cost of decommissioning, currently a cost which is ignored with the tab picked up by thre taxpayer.

You nuke-spruikers are not getting any more convincing with repetition.

Fact #1:

Nuclear power has the least deaths/TWh than coal, oil, gas, solar, wind (geothermal- no data).

Fact #2:

Nuclear power has the least external costs/TWh than coal, oil and gas.

Henry, the direct comparison study for costs of all energy for Australia (Nicholson 2010) included your cost demands. What more do you want?

Include in this analysis, that GenIII+ reactors (the only ones people are building now) have passive safety systems. Resulting in two orders of magnitude less potential for disaster in ISO31000 standards (and several insurance companies are now in discussion with owners).

It’s all about keeping up with technology Henry.

Follow
Follow The RiotACT
Get Premium Membership
Advertisement
The-RiotACT.com Newsletter Sign Up

Images of Canberra

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