Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Recruiting experts in
Accountancy & Finance

Which of Simon’s pathways to carbon neutrality do you prefer? [With poll]

By johnboy - 5 December 2011 24

screenshot

Simon Corbell has announced his proposed pathways to the promised carbon neutrality of 2060.

The options are:

    Pathway1: involves the use of renewable energy as the main strategy for achieving emissions reductions. The purchase of a small component carbon offsets is also included, as current modelling indicates that switching to renewable energy for the total ACT electricity supply will be insufficient to meet the 2020 reduction target. The cost of this proposal per capita in 2020 is $216.32 and per tonne of CO2-e abatement $39.00;

    Pathway 2: involves reductions in GHG emissions from building energy efficiency, sustainable transport and waste recovery with the remaining emissions reductions achieved through switching approximately two thirds of the ACT’s electricity supply to renewable energy. The cost of this proposal per capita in 2020 is $12.20 and per tonne of CO2-e abatement is $2.26;

    Pathway 3: is a modification of pathway 2, involving energy produced through installation of gas fired electricity generation rather than renewable energy. Reductions are still achieved from building energy efficiency, sustainable transport and waste recovery under this pathway. Carbon offsets are proposed as gas is a lower emission, not zero emission, technology. The cost of this proposal per capita in 2020 is $(82.99) ( a net benefit) and per tonne of CO2-e abatement -$15.38 ( a net benefit);

    Pathway 4: Similar to pathways 2 and 3, reduction in GHG emissions are achieved from building energy efficiency, sustainable transport and waste recovery. This pathway proposes the purchase of carbon offsets rather than pursuing changes in electricity generation to achieve the targets. The cost of this proposal per capita in 2020 is ($82.99), (a net benefit), and per tonne of CO2-e abatement -$7.24, also a net benefit; and,

    Pathway 5: This pathway proposes the purchase of carbon offsets to achieve the 2020 emissions reduction target in its entirety. The cost of this proposal per capita in 2020 is $131.80 and per tonne of CO2-e abatement $25.00.

For Carbon Neutrality I prefer...

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

For those interested we’ve put the full Draft Action Plan online.

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
24 Responses to
Which of Simon’s pathways to carbon neutrality do you prefer? [With poll]
p1 10:45 am 06 Dec 11

Thumper said :

Much easier to ban plastic bags than to actually do anything worthwhile….

Sadly, I suspect the Home Insulation Installer Free Money Program ruined this kinda thing for everyone.

Perhaps they could change the first home buyers bonus so that you only get it if the house has solar hot water? The difference in cost between a solar system and a non solar system is a lot less then the bonus?

Thumper 10:18 am 06 Dec 11

p1 said :

damien haas said :

Not mandating double glazing or solar hot water for new constructions.

I never did figure out why these two didn’t happen 30 years ago? We had solar hot water when I was a kid, and double glazing is everywhere in colder climates. While it would add some costs to new houses, a suitably long phase in period, and the economies of scale of it being compulsory would negate that (not to mention the cost saving over time….).

So does anyone know why it has never happened?

Much easier to ban plastic bags than to actually do anything worthwhile.

I’d like to see massive government subsidies for solar hot water, double glazing, water tanks, etc so that people can retrofit their houses and really make a difference to energy consumption.

On top of that all new buildings should be fitted out with the above.

Yes, it will cost a lot of money but the result regarding the environment and consumption should outweigh the intial outlay in a fairly short time, one would think.

Oh that’s right, it will cost money

p1 9:48 am 06 Dec 11

damien haas said :

Not mandating double glazing or solar hot water for new constructions.

I never did figure out why these two didn’t happen 30 years ago? We had solar hot water when I was a kid, and double glazing is everywhere in colder climates. While it would add some costs to new houses, a suitably long phase in period, and the economies of scale of it being compulsory would negate that (not to mention the cost saving over time….).

So does anyone know why it has never happened?

damien haas 8:57 am 06 Dec 11

2060 – Wow. I guess when Nowaste 2010 was announced that date seemed a fair way off as well.

Good intentions are one thing, but actions are another.

Closing local schools means that people have to drive their kids, to another school, or they must take the bus, instead of walking.

Building roads instead of building public transport infrastructure.

Buying more and bigger buses instead of using light rail.

Not mandating double glazing or solar hot water for new constructions.

This is just a short list from about 30 seconds of thinking.

Diggety 10:32 pm 05 Dec 11

Diggety said :

I like the fact that Simon is seeking public comment, although I’d prefer this area seek consultation with reality.

Why do politicians seek public comment on such things? Does what people think make any difference to what the best option is? Don’t they have departments full of experts that they could get a better answer by consulting?

This is the age of Aquarius apparently. Or some sh!t like that.

This whole rigmarole is a good example of how Left wing decision making works- promise something based on technological impossibilities for a purpose of no benefit, using someone else’s money that you’re unlikely to be able to be back.

I say let the Left take control and screw everything up as a demonstration of why we should never take them seriously again (as if Europe is not a good example right now).

Enjoy yourselves.

breda 9:47 pm 05 Dec 11

All of Simon’s pathways are like those like those leading to the Withywindle – they all lead downwards and to a bad end.

And, if he seriously believes that any of this crap will do anything other than punish the public for zero outcomes, he is delusional.

Bramina 9:18 pm 05 Dec 11

Erg0 said :

Is there any particular reason that we wouldn’t just go for the cheapest option if the outcome is the same?

I think that pretty much sums it up.

Diggety said :

I like the fact that Simon is seeking public comment, although I’d prefer this area seek consultation with reality.

Why do politicians seek public comment on such things? Does what people think make any difference to what the best option is? Don’t they have departments full of experts that they could get a better answer by consulting?

fromthecapital 3:59 pm 05 Dec 11

BicycleCanberra said :

Holden Caulfield said :

I’ll take the pathway with no cyclists please.

that pathway does not exist. ‘he he ha ha ha ‘

Not many obese people there!

Diggety 3:19 pm 05 Dec 11

BicycleCanberra said :

given that $1 billion has been spent on roads in the last ten years and will be spending another $150 million for the next 5 years

Perhaps you should start paying for that?

Diggety 3:14 pm 05 Dec 11

I like the fact that Simon is seeking public comment, although I’d prefer this area seek consultation with reality.

Each option proposed has inherent flaws in logic and technological capability. Also, the premise on which it is based is superficial, rather than comprehensive solution.

BicycleCanberra 3:12 pm 05 Dec 11

Holden Caulfield said :

I’ll take the pathway with no cyclists please.

that pathway does not exist. ‘he he ha ha ha ‘

Holden Caulfield 2:39 pm 05 Dec 11

I’ll take the pathway with no cyclists please.

Classified 2:32 pm 05 Dec 11

BicycleCanberra said :

Pathway 2 is a no brainier when you compare the costs, I Iike the idea to ‘reduce private car’ use but given that $1 billion has been spent on roads in the last ten years and will be spending another $150 million for the next 5 years, this will make the target difficult to achieve!

The only way we’re ever going to be able to ‘reduce private car’ is if viable alternatives exist.

BicycleCanberra 2:24 pm 05 Dec 11

Pathway 2 is a no brainier when you compare the costs, I Iike the idea to ‘reduce private car’ use but given that $1 billion has been spent on roads in the last ten years and will be spending another $150 million for the next 5 years, this will make the target difficult to achieve!

Erg0 2:21 pm 05 Dec 11

Is there any particular reason that we wouldn’t just go for the cheapest option if the outcome is the same?

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site