Greens stick their oar into emissions reductions

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, or connect with
68 Responses to Greens stick their oar into emissions reductions
Filter
Order
Diggety Diggety 3:46 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.

HenryBG HenryBG 3:09 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.

Diggety Diggety 2:51 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!

Ben_Dover Ben_Dover 2:51 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.

HenryBG HenryBG 2:42 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.

HenryBG HenryBG 2:38 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.

Diggety Diggety 2:37 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.

Thumper Thumper 2:11 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.

Diggety Diggety 1:48 pm 05 Mar 12

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.

Diggety Diggety 1:46 pm 05 Mar 12

Jethro said :

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)

Jethro, I’ve outlined extensively that CO2 cost abatement is cheaper and faster with nuclear energy, and more importantly, that nuclear and renewable energy compliment each other well. They should not be regarded as ‘one or the other’.
– nuclear the most economical tech to deliver baseload power (full lifecycle costs).
– nuclear the lowest cost abatement for CO2 (apart from hydro)

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

Diesendorf is a commenter on that site, you can ask him how it compares to Mudd’s paper (which does not analyse full cost parameters) on the site, along with other experts.

These are all studies with direct relavence to Australia’s case.

HenryBG HenryBG 10:41 am 05 Mar 12

2604 said :

Blaming criticism of ALP/Green policies on “The Hate Media” rather than on weaknesses in those policies springs immediately to mind.

LoL! I remember that News Limited article. Almost exactly 6 months later, News International had to shut down one paper and front up at various police enquiries into its dishonest and illegal activities.
Bob Brown was bang on the money.

2604 said :

Calling criticism of the Prime Minister “sexist” rather than addressing the substance of that criticism, does too.

Much criticism of Gillard is quite obviously phrased in the language of mysogyny. As Bob Brown points out, a lot of the people doing it don’t even realise they are doing it.

2604 said :

Lee Rhiannon likening comments on her past life as a communist to McCarthyism?

Lee Rhiannon is entitled to make that argument, if that’s the way she sees it. The fact that she’s obviously in denial about the mistakes of her (and her parents’) pro-Soviet past is a different issue.

2604 said :

Here’s another example.

LoL again!

Did you read that article?

Let me summarise it for you:
– Bob Brown says Ta Ann is up to no good in Sarawak
– Ta Ann says that Bob Brown’s photos are wrong, therefore they are not up to no good in Sarawak.
– Bob Brown points out the obvious flaw in that argument
– The Quadrant says this proves Bob Brown hates free speech.

I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but starting about 10 years ago, The Quadrant and the IPA (who used to do excellent work at taking aim at sacred cows such multiculturalism, the aboriginal industry , and the proliferating illegal immigration industry) have lost the plot – no longer do they offer anything even remotely resembling rational analysis. And this article is a case in point – a complete charabia of just about every logical fallacy ever invented.

2604 2604 11:10 pm 04 Mar 12

HenryBG said :

Go on, quote us an instance of “the Greens” casting aspersions on somebody else’s character instead of addressing any facts that character might have brought to the table. That’ll give us something concrete to discuss.

Blaming criticism of ALP/Green policies on “The Hate Media” rather than on weaknesses in those policies springs immediately to mind.

Calling criticism of the Prime Minister “sexist” rather than addressing the substance of that criticism, does too.

Lee Rhiannon likening comments on her past life as a communist to McCarthyism?

Here’s another example.

Jim Jones Jim Jones 7:48 pm 04 Mar 12

Ben_Dover said :

HenryBG said :

Ben_Dover said :

It seems the Greens have adopted the left’s “insult as a substitute for debate technique.

Projection. What you’re describing is *precisely* the modus operandi of the Denial lobby.

They have no facts therefore they resort to smear and idiotic conspiracy theories.
.

So the Greens here decide that they will achieve something by resorting to exactly the same tactics?

Would you like more examples of this, or will the ones I have already quoted do?

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

HenryBG HenryBG 4:56 pm 04 Mar 12

Ben_Dover said :

HenryBG said :

Ben_Dover said :

It seems the Greens have adopted the left’s “insult as a substitute for debate technique.

Projection. What you’re describing is *precisely* the modus operandi of the Denial lobby.

They have no facts therefore they resort to smear and idiotic conspiracy theories.
.

So the Greens here decide that they will achieve something by resorting to exactly the same tactics?

Would you like more examples of this, or will the ones I have already quoted do?

Go on, quote us an instance of “the Greens” casting aspersions on somebody else’s character instead of addressing any facts that character might have brought to the table. That’ll give us something concrete to discuss.

Ben_Dover Ben_Dover 4:23 pm 04 Mar 12

HenryBG said :

Ben_Dover said :

It seems the Greens have adopted the left’s “insult as a substitute for debate technique.

Projection. What you’re describing is *precisely* the modus operandi of the Denial lobby.

They have no facts therefore they resort to smear and idiotic conspiracy theories.
.

So the Greens here decide that they will achieve something by resorting to exactly the same tactics?

Would you like more examples of this, or will the ones I have already quoted do?

HenryBG HenryBG 1:25 pm 04 Mar 12

Gungahlin Al said :

…. the accelerated pace caused by people, coupled with human-caused fragmented landscapes, will outstrip the ability of vegetation communities and their associated animal spectrums, to ‘migrate’ with the changing climatic conditions. So people might continue to “prosper and populate” as Shauno claims, but what’s the point if we’ve devastated the land along the way?

Personally, I don’t care much about the issues you raise above – areas of the earth that have seen intensive human occupation and exploitation already have no ecological diversity to speak of anyway. This is an unavoidable result of human populations continuing to grow, and we can survive just fine with vast number of species going extinct. Been to Greece? It’s a desert. Same with Tunisia. And Persia.

Gungahlin Al said :

And how exactly does one do this without food?

That’s more like it.
What happens when 1 billion people, living not too far away from Australia, see the bulk of their food producing land go under a rising sea?
They’re not going to sit there and quietly starve, they are going to create the biggest human migration in history, and this will have dire economic consequences for Australia.

HenryBG HenryBG 1:05 pm 04 Mar 12

nobody said :

shauno said :

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

We simply must do everything we can in our power to slow down global warming before it is too late. The science is clear. The global warming debate is over. -Arnold Schwarzenegger 2006

Arnie! Another communist!

Gungahlin Al Gungahlin Al 12:23 pm 04 Mar 12

Ben_Dover said :

It seems the Greens have adopted the left’s “insult as a substitute for debate technique. The sad thing is they have not noticed that by doing so they are using the tactics of the “shock Jocks” etc they claim to despise, and have lowered the discourse accordingly.

Sigh… I am on here representing my own thoughts BD, as always. Unless the Greens membership elect me to represent them (to be known in a few weeks) I have no ‘hat’ under which you could claim my comments represent the Greens.

Do I have disdain for the views espoused by Alan Jones, *Andrew* Bolt and a number of others? Absolutely.

Am I bothered that so many people could possibly believe them, and their assertions that the bulk of the world’s scientists are part of some global brainwashing or conspiracy, instead of just doing and relaying the science before them? Intensely so.

Particularly when those same people have no concern (usually) trusting the pills the doctor prescribes them, the functioning of the car they drive or the plane they fly in, or the flood warning on the weather report. When all of these and almost every single aspect of our daily lives are the product of scientific research just like has been happening for several decades and has proven beyond any semblance of reasonable doubt that we are massively accelerating a change in our climate.

I’m also concerned that so many people seem incapable of understanding is not that there is any dispute that climate change has happened before, but that the accelerated pace caused by people, coupled with human-caused fragmented landscapes, will outstrip the ability of vegetation communities and their associated animal spectrums, to ‘migrate’ with the changing climatic conditions. So people might continue to “prosper and populate” as Shauno claims, but what’s the point if we’ve devastated the land along the way? And how exactly does one do this without food? Rely on scientists to save the day and invent some algae-based food substitute (or maybe Soylent Green?)? That would be those same sort of scientists he reckons can’t be trusted to tell the truth on the climate right?

But worse I think is the pointless circularity of trying to have a sensible debate with certain people who refuse to open their eyes and minds. So I choose to instead spend my time elsewhere learning about and revelling in some of the science and wonder that the world’s scientists are discovering around us. And occasionally writing about some of it on my blog. There endeth my rant. And my interest in this thread.

nobody nobody 12:19 pm 04 Mar 12

shauno said :

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.

We simply must do everything we can in our power to slow down global warming before it is too late. The science is clear. The global warming debate is over. -Arnold Schwarzenegger 2006

Gungahlin Al Gungahlin Al 11:43 am 04 Mar 12

HenryBG said :

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.

D’oh. Yes. Wine. That must have been it. Slinks off quietly…

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top

Search across the site