Sorry my remarks above were intended for Paul Gilding’s article and I put them here by mistake. I have put them in the correct place now.

I am always sceptical of a solution which involves some sort of over-arching total control. The best we can hope to do is help set some rules at the edges. The alternative is more like something Fred Nile might come up with, or perhaps someone suffering from the John Pilger syndrome: the sky is falling in and they are all crooks.

We need to consult many disciplines to get viable answers. For example check some economists’ solutions to these sorts of problems as well. One in particular which would be useful is the concept of negative externalities and how these can be internalised to create greater responsibility in business and in consumers. Kevin Rudd, to his credit, has started doing this. He has even talked about doing it with risk.

Some other advice from the sphere of the economist( which I have to confess is my bias): it is useful when looking at these sorts of problems not to view resources as finite things. Assume they change over time, depending on how we decide to use them, how we conceive them and availability, among a myriad of other variables. Assume a resource can be a concept, a person, or a mode of thinking. Assume new useful resources can be discovered in abundance. I don’t just mean ones that already exist like those in the ground.

We are changing very fast now and not all change is catastrophic. Arguing that reducing per capita income is a possible solution is unhelpful. Higher per capita income does not necessarily have to lead to higher pollution even if current models may show that. It is also the hope of the future, providing more spare resources to research and tackle our problems. Our waffle would not be possible if we had to be out hunting for food.

Quote: ” Secondly, she was sending out the subliminal message that the Greens are asking for something which is expensive and out of reach for the vast majority of Australians.”

I think Minister Wong was drawing an analogy between the SPEED of the Ferrari and the SPEED of the projected ETS emission reductions. She is commenting that the Greens (and other independents) want the reductions QUICKER than the Government has delivered.

Thus her further statement that the vehicle that the government has delivered was better than “no vehicle at all”.

‘NO vehicle as all’ is what we would be left with, if the government left it up to the Greens to enact legislation dealing with climate change. Senator Christine Milne just can’t get her head around this ‘democracy’ thing. The Greens first need to win considerable support from the electorate for their policy platforms BEFORE they can expect to have them adopted into law.

I wish them luck, but Senator Christine Milne’s claim that Minister Wong’s statement should be interpreted as a “thinly veiled threat” to drop the ETS scheme is politically naive.

The government has never threatened to drop the ETS legislation to my knowledge. “No vehicle at all’ is what we shall have (at least until the next federal election) if the Greens block the government’s program in the Senate.

They won’t, it would be political suicide.

I think that the only ” subliminal message” that Senator Christine Milne is hearing, is in her head.

I agree with the whole thrust of the argument whole heartedly, but chose a technical detail to quibble over.

I’m not convinced on the merits of a feed in tarriff. I would like it explained to me why it is better for the Government to invest in a feed in tarriff than to invest the same money in centralised grid size solar plants.

The economies of scale of massively decentralised generation are hopeless. Every house gets an inverter. Eeryone gets a reverse power meter. Everyone uses solar PV, which is much more expensive and resource intensive than solar thermal.

The empowerment of having a panel at home is probably worth something. Ditto the incentive to reduce home usage (feed in is only paid on the balance of import/export electricity). But, I don’t think these outweigh the benefits of centralised grid power. In terms of dollars per unit Renewable Energy, centralised wins hands down. in terms of dollars per unit “Government is seen to being doing something’, panels for individuals is far more valuable.

EB