Comments on: Climate spending won’t restore Rudd’s climate credibility http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/05/13/climate-spending-wont-restore-rudds-climate-credibility/ now with extra source Sun, 12 Feb 2012 11:36:30 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Greg Angelo http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/05/13/climate-spending-wont-restore-rudds-climate-credibility/#comment-26518 Greg Angelo Wed, 13 May 2009 08:37:35 +0000 http://www.crikey.com.au/?p=57994#comment-26518 It should be quite obvious that the government position on climate control and carbon dioxide emissions is so much hot air(pardon the pun). Anything which impact on the constituency in terms of reduced consumption, or impact on the unions which support the government will be white anted. The ETS has already been shown to be ineffective which is probably the government's intention. The reality is that to reduce carbon based energy consumption standards of living must fall to cover the cost of more expensive energy alternatives. The poor as well as the rich must consume less. Of course this is quite unpopular and therefore the truth cannot be told. Therefore we use doublespeak and obfuscation to cover our tracks. The current recession is a perfect opportunity to condition consumers as a whole to lower standards of living which would support lower carbon dioxide output in the future. However this would be politically unpopular. Do not expect honesty from politicians It should be quite obvious that the government position on climate control and carbon dioxide emissions is so much hot air(pardon the pun). Anything which impact on the constituency in terms of reduced consumption, or impact on the unions which support the government will be white anted. The ETS has already been shown to be ineffective which is probably the government’s intention.

The reality is that to reduce carbon based energy consumption standards of living must fall to cover the cost of more expensive energy alternatives. The poor as well as the rich must consume less. Of course this is quite unpopular and therefore the truth cannot be told. Therefore we use doublespeak and obfuscation to cover our tracks.

The current recession is a perfect opportunity to condition consumers as a whole to lower standards of living which would support lower carbon dioxide output in the future. However this would be politically unpopular. Do not expect honesty from politicians

]]> By: Evan Beaver http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/05/13/climate-spending-wont-restore-rudds-climate-credibility/#comment-26497 Evan Beaver Wed, 13 May 2009 05:42:02 +0000 http://www.crikey.com.au/?p=57994#comment-26497 Hi Andrew, I mostly agree with your POV here, but strongly disagree with this statement: "there is no justification for discriminating against them[CCS] when distributing government assistance." The justification for discriminating against them is there, in black and white, in the budget document. $2B for 1GW of Clean Coal vs $1.4B for 1GW of Solar. That makes CCS technology almost 50% more expensive. Add to this that CCS will be mercy to the fluctuations of the coal price, and renewables seem a much more sensible option. This also leaves aside the technical challenges/failures surrounding CCS and it's lack of transplant-ability, which are better addressed in Guy Pearce's upsetting Quarterly Essay. I pray to my atheist god that one day we will see some honesty in politics. The key here is money, plain and simple. They are seeking ways to maintain the status quo on coal exports, while still appearing to be serious about climate change. The CC horse will have well and truly bolted by the time CCS is making any measurable difference, so why not be honest about it? Hi Andrew,

I mostly agree with your POV here, but strongly disagree with this statement:

“there is no justification for discriminating against them[CCS] when distributing government assistance.”

The justification for discriminating against them is there, in black and white, in the budget document. $2B for 1GW of Clean Coal vs $1.4B for 1GW of Solar. That makes CCS technology almost 50% more expensive. Add to this that CCS will be mercy to the fluctuations of the coal price, and renewables seem a much more sensible option. This also leaves aside the technical challenges/failures surrounding CCS and it’s lack of transplant-ability, which are better addressed in Guy Pearce’s upsetting Quarterly Essay.

I pray to my atheist god that one day we will see some honesty in politics. The key here is money, plain and simple. They are seeking ways to maintain the status quo on coal exports, while still appearing to be serious about climate change. The CC horse will have well and truly bolted by the time CCS is making any measurable difference, so why not be honest about it?

]]>