climate change
31 Jul 2008
Energy Efficiency: The Gift That Keeps on Giving
Energy efficiency is a common sense strategy for reducing carbon emissions, argues Ben Eltham. So why aren't policy makers paying it more attention?
The Australian climate change debate chugs on. While the Government meets hundreds of lobbyists arguing for special assistance and free carbon permits, the public, meanwhile, appears to have taken its own position: polls consistently show that Australians demand action on climate change. But at this crucial stage, the debate has taken a pause for a moment while the Opposition works out whether we're facing any problem at all.It's scarcely an environment in which adequate scrutiny is being given to this important policy. Indeed, as far as actual accountability is concerned, the past fortnight has seen the Government largely left to its own devices. This is a shame, because there are plenty of very sensible things the Opposition could be saying about Labor's climate change policies. Here's an example: energy efficiency. In order words, what to do with the electricity we already have.
The issue has been playing in the US media and blogosphere recently as a result of an article in Salon by American scientist and author Joseph Romm on the perverse incentives that shape our energy markets.
"Suppose I paid you for every pound of pollution you generated and punished you for every pound you reduced. You would probably spend most of your time trying to figure out how to generate more pollution."
Romm's article goes on to make a point so blindingly obvious that most Australian politicians and businesses have been ignoring it for decades. The point is this: energy efficiency is our single best strategy for reducing carbon emissions.
Sounds simple, doesn't it? That's because it is. By using less energy to perform everyday tasks like turning on the lights or driving our cars, we don't have to burn as much carbon. Our so-called "carbon intensity" goes down, and if we do it aggressively enough, so do our emissions. My grandma had a name for this: she called it "common sense."
The energy efficiency argument is so powerful, it has the potential to short-circuit the current debate over carbon permits altogether. This is because energy efficiency not only saves carbon, it also saves money. That's right: improving energy efficiency actually offers a net benefit to businesses, governments and households. But you won't hear too many "trade-exposed carbon-intensive" industries talking about energy efficiency over the next few months. Why should they? The government has just offered them free money in proportion to how inefficient they are.
A range of recent studies have examined just how much potential there is for energy efficiency gains in Australia - using existing, proven technology. Estimates for the construction industry, for example, range from 6 per cent up to 40 per cent. For the manufacturing sector they range from 6 per cent to 46 per cent. For households they range from 13 per cent up to a paradigm-changing 73 per cent. These figures, by the way, come from a Climate Institute paper summarising estimates by Sustainable Energy Authority Victoria, the Federal Government's Energy White Paper, the National Framework for Energy Efficiency, and a report by Allen Consulting on the economic impact of improved energy efficiency. A recent McKinsey study concluded that "cost-effective energy efficiency improvements could achieve approximately one seventh of the greenhouse gas emission reductions required to reduce Australian emissions to 30 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020."
Energy efficiency is even better than renewable energy. Firstly, it not only reduces carbon emissions, it actually reduces energy use itself. Forget about building more wind turbines - if you improve energy efficiency sufficiently, you don't have to build new electricity generation assets at all. Secondly, energy efficiency compounds itself into the future. It's the gift that keeps on giving. As technology improves, new rounds of efficiency investment become possible, saving even more electricity and therefore emissions.
The policy basis for energy efficiency is sound. California has been doing it for years by "de-coupling" the revenue of energy utilities from the amount of electricity they sell. In the corporate world, consultants like Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute raise millions by telling firms how to cut energy costs.
As Romm points out, "Economic models greatly overestimate the cost of carbon mitigation because economists simply don't believe that the economy has lots of high-return energy-efficiency opportunities. In their theory, the economy is always operating near efficiency." Yeah, just like those mortgage finance markets.
In the real world, the opportunities for energy efficiency are vast. We can do much better than simply screwing in new lightbulbs or using more fuel-efficient manufacturing techniques. It's called "demand management", or, for the rest of us, using less energy.
For a long time, policy makers and industry lobbyists thought that demand management could never work. That was before Queensland's recent drought, when the Queensland Water Commission's innovative Target 140 public education campaign succeeded in cajoling Queenslanders into making huge reductions in their personal water use. Brisbane's daily water consumption per person went from something like 700 litres in the rainy 1980s to close to 140 litres at the height of the drought.
Then the ABC's Carbon Cops demonstrated how easy it was to get comparable energy savings in our homes. This landmark program proved that scientists could look good on TV and showed how many simple efficiency solutions were available to the householder.
Many businesses have similar opportunities available. For the past few weeks we've been deluged by industry lobbyists and their stooges on the Opposition benches telling us that Penny Wong's carbon permits would see massive "carbon leakage" as Australia's supposedly hyper-efficient manufacturing and mining industries packed up and moved to countries where they can pollute all they like.
The energy efficiency data shows up this carbon leakage argument as the special pleading it really is. Australia hasn't built a new aluminium smelter in nearly a decade and our plants now lag in efficiency compared to the newest and best smelters being built in Africa. Indeed, according to the Australian aluminium industry's own figures, they've already been able to reduce the energy intensity of smelters here to just 40 per cent of 1990 levels. They did this when the price for carbon was zero. It does rather make the case for greater incentives for energy efficiency, not fewer.
Of course, there are some in the fossil fuel industry who absolutely hate the concepts of demand management and energy efficiency. They're the people who make money by selling energy. Not that we should feel sorry for them. As Kenneth Davidson wrote recently in The Age, the privatised owners of the Latrobe Valley coal-fired power plants were happy enough to embrace efficiency when they took over the generators from the Kennett Government. "The new owners sacked thousands of SECV workers and decimated the coal towns built in the Latrobe Valley to service the industry," he wrote "Only small change from the $28 billion from the capital windfall from the sale found its way back into the valley to deal with the regional social and economic problems created."
But now that the shoe's on the other foot, generators are demanding that their carbon pollution be paid for by taxpayers. It's the age-old story of privatising the profits and socialising the costs.
No, it's not the coal-fired power generators we should feel sorry for as we discuss climate change and energy efficiency. It's Brendan Nelson.
This sincere but hapless servant of the Australian public has been a mediocre president of the AMA, a poor Minister for Defence and Education, and a disastrous Leader of the Opposition. After months of red-eyed emotion and single-digit poll figures, he can't even sway his own Cabinet on the most important policy issue of the moment, climate change.
The carbon and financial savings to be made from increased efficiencies are not fine points, they are shouting for attention, but there's simply no room for them in a Parliament hamstrung and distracted by the petty posturing, flat-earthism and power plays of the Opposition.
Kevin Rudd and the backroom boys at Labor HQ must be delighted with their decision to give the Climate Change portfolio to Penny Wong. While the South Australian Senator can at times seem one-dimensional, even robotic, her impressive ability to stay on message is only amplifying the embarrassing prevarication of the Liberal's senior leadership. After weeks of tough-talking on carbon permits, the Opposition is back to where it started: with Malcolm Turnbull's policy. The one that it took to the last election.
Although those who have studied the gradual slide of the Liberal Party away from liberalism in the past 20 years will not be surprised, as a simple matter of political tactics it's amazing that the Opposition seems so completely wrong-footed by climate change. In fact, it could get worse. There's enough disgruntled skeptics on the back bench to suggest that this is not the last word we'll hear on this issue. If Turnbull does eventually take over as leader, it's entirely possible than the Minchin faction of climate change hardliners will actively destablise his leadership. Given the polls on the issue, this would be electoral poison.
On current performances, the federal Liberals are heading for a long spell in political purgatory. It's a crowded plane of existence currently, given that it's occupied by all the state Liberal branches. Well, all except Queensland's, which on the weekend merged itself out of existence altogether. It's been said that nothing unites a party like being in government. The past week has shown that the other side of that proposition is also true: nothing divides like opposition.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Kwoff
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
Ben, have you ever heard of the Jevons Paradox?
Goonie, I have indeed.
These days economists like to refer to it as simply as the "rebound effect."
I’d make two points in relation to rebound effects of energy conservation. the first is that in the Australian context we’re talking about combining energy efficiency with a carbon emissions cap (admittedly a relatively low one). In other words, efficiency measures will mainly act to reduce the cost of mitigation.
The other point I’d make is that the data doesn’t support the Jevon Paradox argumennt, at least in contemporary terms (perhaps because energy in the past two decades has been so cheap). I quote here a Rocky Mountain paper:
"… we are observing only very small rebound effects (if any at all) in the United States. For example, we can look at household driving patterns: While total vehicle miles traveled have increased 16 percent between 1991 and 2001, there is no evidence that owners of hybrid vehicles drove twice as much just because their cars were twice as efficient.
For green buildings the evidence is very similar. From many case studies related to RMI’s Built Environment work, we have not seen evidence that radically more efficient commercial buildings cause people to leave the lights on all night and set their office thermostats five degrees lower. In fact, energy savings in everything from office towers to schools have often been higher than projected. People do not seem to change their behaviors simply because they have a more efficient building. "
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/05/beating-energy-efficiency-parado…
Excellent points with respect to the combination of energy efficiency measures with a carbon cap.
As to RMI’s statistics on rebound effects, that’s interesting, but not a slam dunk. They may be looking in the wrong place. If I save $50 on my electricity bill, I might not spend it on further cooling my house, but I might spend it on driving my car to the beach.
Robert Merkel.
And I bet, Ben, you are also familiar with Factor 4, though some folks reading this might not be, so:
"Factor 4 Doubling Wealth - Halving resource use"
Weizsacker, Lovins, Lovins
A somewhat dry tome of examples, but very valuable, eg:
"Negawatts" - (negative megawatts) electrical demand reduction by spending capital on energy saving work and materials (eg loft insulation) instead of a new power station. More megawatts avoided per dollar than would have been created if spent on the power station, and ooh look, no fuel, no running costs.
"Bigger pipes" - in a factory, fluid friction in pipes can be reduced by perhaps 95% by doubling the diameter of pipes, and other more obvious tricks like placing processes better to shorten runs, avoid bends. Doubles the cost of the pipes? Probably. Once off. And in any case, you need far fewer pumps, so perhaps break even on the capital. Smashes the electricity bill for the pumping? Certainly. Year after year after year…
See also Australia’s "The Natural Edge Project"
www.naturaledgeproject.net/
Their big target: mentoring the new generation of engineers to think right, saving clients a shirtload of money, and the planet.
Ah Robert that’s you there hiding behind the 80’s movie avatar! Hah hah!
Yes, I agree, not a slam dunk. Money saved from energy efficiency goes straight to the bottom line, where it can appear in all sorts of other carbon-emitting guises. All the more reason to lower the energy intensity of the broader economy …
Thanks njsharp for those links. Yes simple capacity measures like bigger pipes, fatter wires, well-aspected windows and the like can make a huge difference …
A good example: every motorist can save between 20% and 40% of their fuel consumption and hence their journey cost, and incidentally their CO2 emissions too, by keeping their maximum speed to 80kph and driving ‘gently’ (no ‘pedal to metal’ take-offs, gentle braking where possible by ‘driving ahead’ - anticipating conditions in advance and gradually adjusting speed accordingly).
One might think an information campaign encouraging people to save 20% on their fuel bills by driving a bit slower (where they now go fast) would make sense. In fact the USA and UK both did just this during the fuel crisis in the ’70s (I’m not sure about Oz.) But for some reason governments everywhere now act as if this is a no-go area, as though suggesting it might be electoral suicide!
I’m not even advocating mandatory speed cuts, though I believe this would be justified given Peak Oil and the risk of runaway global overheating. But let’s at least tell people what they could save, so they can choose.
Keeping your top speed down to 80 on stretches where you could legally go faster will admittedly increase your travel time, but you’ll be surprised how little difference it actually makes. And a hidden benefit is how much less tired and stressed and more relaxed you are upon arrival - so you’re almost certainly increasing your body’s "mileage", too!
I’ve registered domain www.stickat80.org to promote the idea, and a web page will appear there as soon as I get organised. Any suggestions are welcome - you can send them to me at ttstoo@gmail.com.
Stop being a filthy Communist Ben. Nothing you, I, or anyone else in Australia does about carbon emissions or energy efficiency is going to make any difference. So do like I do - run the aircon at full blast in the summer and get a nice fire going in the fireplace. Life is too short to worry about the stupid environment :)
Hi Ben here is my two bobs worth.
Carbon Credits for Responsible Citizens- Satire
Emission Trading Scheme- for personal usage by ‘ordinary’ Citizens
In my opinion the switch to Government accredited GreenPower is very appealing to ‘high-income’ earning celebrities, politicians, bureaucrats and academics. Just as trendy as showing off your new hybrid car or solar panel on your roof or going shopping with a green bag. Since raggedy style of dress has become fashionable we need alternative forms of ‘class distinctions’.
I would welcome a simple compulsory system that automatically includes every ‘ordinary’ Citizen.
I envisage some sort of allocation system put in place by the Government of the day
Whereby each citizen is allocated a certain amount of Carbon credits at a low price. This will give a person a choice how to budget their allocation. Whether to reduce usage of electrical appliances in the house, turn off those lights, fantasizing about participation in a Native American healing Sweat Lodge instead of turning on the air conditioner, choose to fly or not to fly, reduce usage of your diesel guzzling motor car, grow some green leafy vegetable in pots and turn off that screen, mend your clothes instead of buying new ones, avoid meat and all processed food.
You will receive an email: "We’re writing to let you know that you’ve just reached 75% of your usage allowance for your standard rate power allocation. This is a reminder that when you reach 100% you will be billed triple the standard rate!"
Alternatively an Alarm or flashing light system is installed in your kitchen indicating your power consumption by green light flashing up to 50%, orange light from 50% to 75%, red light from 75% to 100%.
With today’s technology and all the fuss about intelligent design? Chickenfeed!
I would like to see a system similar to ‘Flybuys in reverse’ implemented by all Power brokers?
Instead of gaining points for high spending you will gain points for low usage. Accumulated reward points will attract a bonus. Interplanetary voyage?
A similar reward system could be applied for low usage household water consumption.
Reduce legal speed limit from 110km to 95km!!!
The choice is yours!
Former Horticulturist
Ordinary Citizen of Murray-Darling Basin
The truth is that "honour systems" never really work.
Al Gore might get a warm and fuzzy feeling when his "Inconvenient truth" airs, but the convenient lie, is that our democratically elected politicians really make any difference to what happens.
Sure the laws occasionally punish the guilty, but by and large they are there for the controlling powers to keep in control.
What any school child quickly learns is the discrepancy between what their elders say and what they do?
So we are motivated by carrot and stick incentives.
Those of us who are good employees or bosses are self motivating and get a sense of achievement by setting goals that challenge us and satisfy us when we achieve them.
We have learned that "happiness" is neither something that is bought nor even earned.
It comes from the acknowledgement that we have everything we need when we are responsive to our communities, our families and our own needs.
We are unhappy when the "system" does’nt work for us.
When we do what we believe to be the right thing and we are punished for it.
Urban living bombards our senses with visual stimuli and noise pollution.
We start to sensorily shut down, and become depressed.
Just look at the pharmaceuticals out there for this epidemic.
They are not only available from reliable prescriptions, but everywhere you can imagine.
Is it any wonder that sensible debate is not possible? People can’t digest and assimilate complex arguments they are not equipped to deal with.
How many people know that CO2 has no liquid phase, and can be frozen and stored as ‘dry ice’.
Plants need CO2 to photosynthesize with water to make sugar for respiration and storage.
Carbon is NOT a dirty word, every cell in our body needs C for its existence.
What about sulfur dioxide, and all the other heavy metal pollutants?
Why has C been singled out?
What happened to the Ozone layer, so is ozone (O3) good or bad?
Mr Rudd speaks Mandarin, does he know anything about organic chemistry?
Can the academics these guys trot out get passed their own egos?
I heard one the other day obfuscate the whole debate by redefining the energy sources as "simply, either solar or non solar"
It’s a bit like the delay in determining that smoking was really bad for you by the crummy quality of the anti smoking argument.
We are in danger of the same thing here.
In this case, bad arguments are worse than no arguments.
I hope I have’nt just disproved my whole posting now.
Hopefully the true believers will get it.
Cheerio
Very nice piece, thank you.
Another group, the 2,000 Watt Society, is worth a look. From wiki: ‘2,000-Watt Society is a vision, originated by the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zürich at the end of 1998, in which each person in the developed world would cut their over-all rate of energy use to an average of no more than 2,000 watts’
A number of links here:
http://buzzfeed.com/jonah/the-2000-watt-society
Ah Mikolai, stop trying to kid anyone. I know you wear a little Lenin cap in your bedroom when you think no-one can see …
WRT driving slower to save fuel, I’m not sure that the quantities are that large. Wheels Magazine did just such a test recently, and saved about 9% by reducing their cruising speed on the freeway from 110 km/h to 90 km/h.
ZanyHatter
Hi Ringo thank you for drawing to my attention the 2000 watt-society. Coincidentally I was born in Basel, Switzerland. I spent many of my young happy years in tribal Congo without electricity or running water!
As for your comment Goonie I disagree with the 9% saving on fuel consumption. My experience on Outback Roads over the past 30 years travelling 100’s of thousands kilometres has demonstrated to me up to 35% reduction in fuel consumption!!!!!
Oops.
The Claim: "Energy EFFICIENCY is a common sense strategy for REDUCING carbon emissions"
The Rub: Making your kilowatt/hour more EFFICIENT means doing MORE with the SAME amount.
"Here’s an example: energy efficiency. In other words, what to do with the electricity we already have."
The Problem: Making things MORE efficient means that level of carbon emissions remains the SAME.
The Reality: The climate science (that I presume we all agree upon) states that the CURRENT level of carbon emissions CANNOT remain the SAME. So doing MORE with the SAME amount is pointless.
The Logical Flaw: It is assumed that doing MORE with the SAME amount of emissions, is equivalent to doing MORE with LESS. (MORE=LESS or EFFICEINCY=REDUCTION)
The Contradiction: How can MORE be LESS? It cannot. Either we can do MORE things with the SAME amount. Or we can do the SAME with LESS. We cannot do MORE with LESS. This is ‘common sense’ only in the abstract world of economics.
Solution 1: Remain in the abstract world of economics and rely on a concept like EFFICIENCY that assumes that MORE = LESS. That way people consuming LESS can offset the fact that power plants produce MORE.
Solution 2: Come back to reality and realize that carbon emissions need to be reduced at their source. Power plants need to produce LESS carbon emissions. We all need to focus MORE on how to solve this problem.
Luckily for us the German and Spanish governments have been doing this.
[Google FEED-IN TARRIFS]
Obviously the posting problem was fixed, Bob?
What posting problem? We are many.
Goonie, and Unveiled
My 20% to 40% figures are empirical from my own experimentation. I’ve been searching for proper scientifically-sourced stat’s to either support or contradict my findings, but so far largely in vain - much to my surprise and disappointment, as surely the topic merits research and publicising in these energy-constrained times? One of the reasons I’ve delayed getting the website up is that I have been hoping to present some independent figures supporting the suggestion (to ‘stick at 80’).
You can check it for yourself though - just back off the gas when you get to 80kph, and see what difference it makes to your litres/100km figure. But to be fair, drive conservatively at lower speeds, too, be consistent (resist that boy-racer urge at the lights!) and measure your consumption as accurately as you can.
Thanks for the pointer to the Wheels article, Goonie - I’ll look it up. Only dropping to 90K is skimming the upper limit of the band for optimum economy, from what I have been able to find: dropping back a further 10K will help more (and save you having to slow down for every 80kph stretch and speed up again afterwards, which is one of the things that increases your consumption).
It might come as news to some NM readers that you can fart and walk AND chew at the same time, so what is imbecilic about contemplating, simultaneously:
* requiring polluters to clean up their emissions, improve their emission control technology, sequester their emissions, whatever, and pollute less ?
* meanwhile, that the rest of us consume less - you know, only ten times the average Third World consumption rate;
* that alternative forms of energy be funded from pollution taxes, permit fees, etc., wind-farms and solar arrays in a huge ring all around inland Australia (Dubbo-Mildura-Ceduna-Kalgoorlie-Broome-Katherin-Mt Isa-Roma-Dubbo)and up through the middle along the rail line;
* that vast areas be put under plantations of natives and high-value timber trees, to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere, especially in the North, particularly by Aboriginal people on Aboriginal land;
* that far more extensive rail networks be built (funded partly through the above), to take trucks off the road; and smaller cars, preferably electric, and improved (and heavily fare-subsidised from the above) public transport systems be re-introduced;
That way, energy efficiency, pollution reduction, CO2 sequestration in vegetation and underground, and reduced consumption could all work in the same direction :)
It won’t happen tomorrow, but it will happen. Of course, it might need about 22 million people to make it happen.
Joe
Joe,
The imbecilic part of reducing everything to the idea that you can "fart and walk AND chew at the same time" is the fact that it doesn’t explain when you should this (let alone how this is to be done). In the modern world, we at least need a WHEN, so that we can coordinate our planning. It would be good if we had a understanding of HOW to ensure that everyone is on the same page and "working in the same direction."
Take a note from philosophy of Sopranos: timing is everything.
Sorry, Bob, but you ARE allowed to read beyond the first paragraph.
As for your strange objections, when = ASAP, starting before 1/1/2010 if possible. Get a penalty/permit/fine/tax system in place for 2009-2010, on a PAYG basis, start funding mitigation/reduction programs as soon as the revenue starts rolling in, and ….. I was going to say ‘and Bob’s your uncle’ but that seemed too provocative.
how = see above
As I tried to suggest in my last line, it won’t happen tomorrow etc. In reality, of course, the whole kit and caboodle might take some years to get up and running, but the earlier the better.
Joe
Ok Joe,
I’ll explain why I DIDN’T read beyond the first paragraph.
"requiring polluters to clean up their emissions, improve their emission control technology, sequester their emissions, whatever, and pollute less ?"
How is this to be done? Saying it should be so doesn’t make it so. You seem to have an inkling of this chasm in your logic when you use the word "whatever."
"meanwhile, that the rest of us consume less - you know, only ten times the average Third World consumption rate;"
Again how should this be done? Should your family go without so that my family can have more because I deem them to have more potential? Or should we all be brought to the same level? In which case, given that it has never been done before, I ask again, how should we all made equal?
"alternative forms of energy be funded from pollution taxes, permit fees, etc., wind-farms and solar arrays in a huge ring all around inland Australia (Dubbo-Mildura-Ceduna-Kalgoorlie-Broome-Katherin-Mt Isa-Roma-Dubbo)and up through the middle along the rail line;"
Although I personally think this is a good idea and have argued in support of increased investment in renewables - you tie the condition for the funding of such investment to the establishement of "pollution taxes." You are putting the cart before the horse. As pointed out above you have not adequately explained on what basis such pollution taxes should be levied and how it is you perceive that such a taxation regieme would come into force. (Which Australian government has proposed or even entertained such an idea?)
"that vast areas be put under plantations of natives and high-value timber trees, to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere, especially in the North, particularly by Aboriginal people on Aboriginal land;"
I dare say that landholders might object to that, but what the hey, we passed ‘pragmatic’ reasoning three points ago.
"that far more extensive rail networks be built (funded partly through the above), to take trucks off the road; and smaller cars, preferably electric, and improved (and heavily fare-subsidised from the above) public transport systems be re-introduced;"
Again this is great idea. But just tell us all how to get passed the vested interests preventing its realization.
Ok Joe,
I’ll explain why I DIDN’T read beyond the first paragraph.
"requiring polluters to clean up their emissions, improve their emission control technology, sequester their emissions, whatever, and pollute less ?"
How is this to be done? Saying it should be so doesn’t make it so. You seem to have an inkling of this chasm in your logic when you use the word "whatever."
"meanwhile, that the rest of us consume less - you know, only ten times the average Third World consumption rate;"
Again how should this be done? Should your family go without so that my family can have more because I deem them to have more potential? Or should we all be brought to the same level? In which case, given that it has never been done before, I ask again, how should we all made equal?
"alternative forms of energy be funded from pollution taxes, permit fees, etc., wind-farms and solar arrays in a huge ring all around inland Australia (Dubbo-Mildura-Ceduna-Kalgoorlie-Broome-Katherin-Mt Isa-Roma-Dubbo)and up through the middle along the rail line;"
Although I personally think this is a good idea and have argued in support of increased investment in renewables - you tie the condition for the funding of such investment to the establishement of "pollution taxes." You are putting the cart before the horse. As pointed out above you have not adequately explained on what basis such pollution taxes should be levied and how it is you perceive that such a taxation regieme would come into force. (Which Australian government has proposed or even entertained such an idea?)
"that vast areas be put under plantations of natives and high-value timber trees, to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere, especially in the North, particularly by Aboriginal people on Aboriginal land;"
I dare say that landholders might object to that, but what the hey, we passed ‘pragmatic’ reasoning three points ago.
"that far more extensive rail networks be built (funded partly through the above), to take trucks off the road; and smaller cars, preferably electric, and improved (and heavily fare-subsidised from the above) public transport systems be re-introduced;"
Again this is a great idea. But just tell us all how to get passed the vested interests preventing its realization.
Hi Bob,
Not my job to tell anybody what to do. But if I were PM, or Minister for the Environment or for Climate Change, I would be ratchetting up the penalties for polluting, taxes, WHATEVER, as time passed, in order to encourage THEM to develop the technology to minimise emissions. It would be up to them, pay progressively higher taxes etc., or develop pollution-reduction technology. Simple, really.
How to get people to consume less ? Simple again, tax crap and non-essentials at higher levels, jail those who use too many resources, a few public executions for any clandestine visits to black-market McDonald’s for instance, seem to work wonders in China and Iran so why not here ?
I don’t know why these brilliant ideas are being implemented right now, but then that’s probably why I’m not the PM, or the Minister for the Environment or for Climate Change, no matter how good-looking I might be.
Obviously, any tree-planting on Aboriginal land by the people there would be voluntary, that surely goes without saying.
So that’s my …. drats, I was going to say ‘my two Bob’s worth’, but that would call forth more dumbfoundedness about ‘how’.
Apart from all that, I don’t know what your objections are, Bob.
Joe
Sorry, I meant ’ don’t know why these brilliant ideas AREN’T being implemented right now …’
Joe
Joe,
Investment causes savings. Its not rocket science, its Keynesian macroeconomics. The government needs to provide either direct investment or competative subsidies for investment in renewable energy resources. This is being done already in Germany and Spain.
No need for pollution taxes, no need to "justify" tightening anyones belt. No need to reduce anyone to a producer of carbon either. No need to think too much about the logical consequences of ill-informed armchair prescriptions for social change.
What’s wrong with ill-informed armchair prescriptions ? They’ve done me no harm so far.
I guess investment CAN cause savings, it’s not cast in stone, or carved in concrete. Of course, the government should be passing on earnings from permits, carbon taxes, fines, etc. to renewable energy projects and forestry projects. A simple transfer from one set of (polluting) producers to another set of (not quite so polluting) producers. Seems a logical consequence to me.
Joe
This is codswallop at its finest!
Energy efficiency is not the solution to climate change and is the all too often Panacea grabbed by the Greens and anyone else that cant see the real issues.
The real issue is overconsumption and the removal of government controls to manage demand effectively and responsibly and then manage supply in the same fashion.
Dont be sucked in by such rhetoric, it does the cause know good and careers the climate change debate in the same meaningless direction.
If you want to understand energy efficiency and what it means read some science, refer to CSIRO Barney Foran Future Dilemma’s Report, and soak in the section on energu efficiency risk with particular reference to the section on the "Energy Rebound Effect’ which defies the argument above with some good maths. In a nutshell, energy efficency without demand constraints that were once commonly available to any responsible government actually will cause a net rise in the consumption of energy, as the means to consume energy become cheaper and more common place.
Hi Rosetta,
Do you mean, put an ever higher price on energy and people will use less of it ? Fair enough. The same with water, i.e. from the Murray: put a high enough price on it and force out users who can’t afford it, thereby (1) freeing up water, and (2) restricting water use to producers who can use it efficiently. Orchards and dairy farms use far less water per $ of output than cotton or rice, or even pasture for cattle.
Of course, in the case of water, I’m with Premier Rann: jail anyone using more than their allocation, and - I would add - blow up their pumping and irrigation facilities. For more serious offenders, confiscate their homes and sell their children into slavery, whatever it takes to get the Murray and Darling flowing properly. For very serious offenders, like the management of Cubby station, summary execution, preferably in public to encourage the others.
Aren’t you lucky I’m not prime minister ? Now, about those Islander guest workers, unemployed Aboriginal people on CDEP and the fruit industry ……
Cheers,
Joe
No Joe, not exactly,
Did you note the wording of Rann’s statement of Murray Darling water thieves? Only large scale theft and only from the Murray Darling, freeing up arid land GAB water thieves (ala Roxby) to continue business as usual :)
The "energy rebound effect" formula stipulates that adding energy efficiency without counterbalancing tax effects to moderate consumption - which by the way we lost along the wayside about 20 years ago, will spiral up consumption to create a net greater consumption effect.
The next Greens meeting you attend, for example, take pen and paper. Yes, most of the Greens will have turned up alone in a $50,000 hybrid (most Greens party members can afford them) but it would have been much more energy efficient for 6 Greens to turn up in an untuned V8 commodore…slightly off track but you hopefully get the point.
I will dig out the exact formula and post it up, I dont think Barney Foran (CSIRO) uses the example of the Greens car selection though!