Email

Financial crisis won't delay emissions trading: Wong

Posted October 14, 2008 08:00:00

Climate Change Minister Penny Wong says the Government will resist calls for it to delay the introduction of an emissions trading scheme.

The head of one of Australia's largest resources companies says it would be unwise to start the scheme while global financial markets are in chaos.

Woodside chief executive Don Voelte says the Government will be risking jobs if it presses ahead with a 2010 start date.

Ms Wong is in Poland for talks on global warming and says the financial crisis has been raised.

"On the issue of the current financial crisis, I would say that that has been the subject of some discussion and there is a clear view emerging amongst ministers that the current financial crisis does not lessen the need for the nations of the world to deal with climate change," she said.

Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull has been calling for an emissions trading scheme to be delayed.

Mr Turnbull says it should not be finalised until global talks in Copenhagen next year.

"Why would you want to finalise something as important as this in the dark?", he said.

However, Mr Turnbull denies his call for the scheme to be put off until 2011 or 2010 will cause momentum to cut pollution to slow.

"I am committed to an effective environmental and responsible economic response to climate change," he said.

Tags: business-economics-and-finance, industry, business-regulation, environment, climate-change, government-and-politics, federal-government, international-financial-crisis, australia

Comments (66)

Comments for this story are closed. No new comments can be added. If you would like to have your say on this issue, you can do so via the Emails section of our Opinion pages.

• John:

  14 Oct 2008 8:27:50am

  Penny you are Wong Wong Wong, this will cost Australians dearly at a time when we can least afford it!

  Agree (1) Alert moderator

  • Ado:

    14 Oct 2008 8:43:53am

    John, you are such a John John John John! The scheme isn't even implemented until 2010. By then even the most pessimistic analysts say the world economy will have recovered to business as usual. Meanwhile, if we listen to doomsayers like you, carbon emissions will continue to rise. Get a perspective. Economic crises some and go, the atmosphere will remain polluted.

    Agree (1) Alert moderator

    • Doh:

      14 Oct 2008 9:01:42am

      Of course if we enter a depression it is very likely that will reduce emissions because fewer people will be making or consuming things. We can all live in bark huts if there are any trees left.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Remark:

        14 Oct 2008 11:24:18am

        For progress to occur man has always had to take bold steps forward, leaving the mistakes of the past behind.
        
        If we had listened to the laggard "do-nothing" element, we would still be living in caves in Africa, too afraid to venture onwards.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • riven:

      14 Oct 2008 9:11:12am

      You are right Ado. Even though I have very little faith in Penny Wong ( and for that matter Peter Garrett ) I think we should bear in mind that the financial problems will be measured in decades, global warming will be measured in centuries.
      
      The slowdown in economic activity is the best outcome the non-human planet could have wished for.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Ben:

        14 Oct 2008 10:08:06am

        You raise an interesting point, if the global economy has slowed this must have an impact on the future predicitions of global warming (as it would have been modelled on conditions prior to the global crisis). I wonder if new figures would show that we now need to do less? (just like the oil prices is there a level of speculation involved in global warming?)

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • James:

        14 Oct 2008 10:45:47am

        yeah - let's cop out like the pathetic, polluting wusses we are all over again.
        
        If you think this economic crisis is bad, wait til climate change decimates our billion dollar barrier reef tourism industry and bankrupts our agricultural industry as crops fail, our pathetic amount of rain water disappears entirely and 3/4 of Australia is turned into a dust-bowl.
        
        People who think we will not be severely economically impacted in Australia by climate change are deluded. Every single economic expert has stated categorically that acting now to dramatically reduce emissions will be far, far cheaper than either doing nothing or waiting longer.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • John O:

        14 Oct 2008 11:21:30am

        And listening to economists has been good to the world how?

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Homer:

      14 Oct 2008 9:46:05am

      Ado, the emissions trading scheme is just an electricity tax. They are using this tax to try to drive down consumer usage by causing financial hardship to do so.
      
      Therefore the impending recession/possible depression predicted from the financial problems will actually achieve the same result.
      
      As there is very little or no scope for doing anything about actual carbon dioxide emissions other than economic sanctions on their usage, and no reward for anybody reducing their carbon footprint so with us now having a recession before the govt implemented recession they are intent on bringing on through an emission trading scheme, why bother with a second or deeper recession now???

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Patch:

        14 Oct 2008 10:35:27am

        Also the money from the tax goes directly towards developing renewable energy, protecting forests etc.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Homer:

        14 Oct 2008 10:49:18am

        Says who??
        Once the tax is paid it can be used for any kind of 'emergency fund'. Take the emergency now for example. There is no legislation requiring them to do anything at all with the money.
        It is just another tax and will be treated as such.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Ado:

        14 Oct 2008 10:50:33am

        Yes Homer but this is not a discussion about the structure of the ETS. I'm not happy about it either. The way it stands now it's just a way for polluters to keep polluting. What's wrong with a carbon tax anyway? Price seems to be the only way the mainstream will respond to the issue.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Natalie:

    14 Oct 2008 8:55:16am

    John - the buck has to stop somewhere - it is here. The ability to continue to emit unprecedented levels of carbon does not equal long-term prosperity.
    
    But research has shown that by purposively viewing something as an opportunity rather than a threat, we can usually find genuine opportunities. If you're so worried about your hip pocket look around for the investment and innovation opportunities associated with constrained carbon emissions - there are PLENTY for anyone who takes the time to look. There are also many many cost saving measures that can be taken - a good way to identify them is to measure the energy use rather than the $$ value of your lifestyle - lots of ideas will come.
    

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • drwoood:

    14 Oct 2008 9:22:08am

    What policymakers are presently proposing is likely to be so weak that the amount of investment in reducing emissions (and therefore the cost) will be tiny compared to Australia's GDP. It may be difficult administratively to work out the framework by 2010 for reducing Australia's emissions trajectory, but we could easily introduce carbon pricing earlier than then. The first reporting period of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Bill started in mid 2008. We could easily introduce a carbon price during the second reporting period that commences in mid 2009.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • John D:

    14 Oct 2008 10:36:16am

    I think you overlook the point that our economic quality of life will suffer greatly from the way that Labor is going about things.
    
    Yes electricity ill become dearer.
    
    But technology will suffer even more because all of our modern day wonders are so eergy intensive to produce.
    
    There will be no more Flat screen tv's etc, they will be taxed rediculously with the introduction of a carbon tax
    
    Another question, do obese people have to pay a carbon tax for huffing and puffing more Co2 into the atmosphere than slim people?

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • fester:

    14 Oct 2008 10:49:21am

    Stockmarkets will ebb and flow. In fact yesterday the ASX had it's biggest one day points increase in history. The environment will continue it's steady decline unless we act. That is the reality we need to come to terms with.
    
    If we make the changes now, we will be setup for the future. So it makes a lot of sense to act now. As for the neigh saying mantra of "destroying the economy", Garnaut showed it will do no such thing so that whole line is just blatant propaganda misinformation. In fact we will be better positioned to supply expertise to the rest of the world if we go early on reducing our emissions. We could be the solar (thermal) capital of the world!
    
    I wish all the deniers and obstructionists would just pull their heads out of the sand. It needs to be done and we need to do it now. Get used to it!

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Brad:

    14 Oct 2008 11:06:57am

    It will cost us more if we do nothing.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Pat:

  14 Oct 2008 8:39:41am

  Well done Penny! Keep it up! I'd rather take action before the world has a massive coronary.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

• lucy:

  14 Oct 2008 8:46:37am

  John,
  you ought to have a more long-term vision. the financial crisis will pass in a few years... whereas climate change threatens the very existence of human life on the planet and must be dealt with NOW if we are hoping to reverse it.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Ben:

  14 Oct 2008 8:49:53am

  Um 2010 start date, I thought the experts believed that we will have recovered from the crisis next year.
  
  How about we continue to plan for a 2010 start date and if the situation is still bad we reconsider then?

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Doh:

    14 Oct 2008 8:59:57am

    An excellent suggestion Ben and one which will no doubt be adopted. We also get to reconsider our elected representatives in 2010 so any mandate can be confirmed or rejected at that time.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • kevinisaspunk:

    14 Oct 2008 9:10:58am

    Yeah I think the environment will no doubt be very flexible about the starting date and place great consideration towards the financial crisis.
    
    Maybe we could ask global warming just to stop for a few years until we are ready to start making changes.
    
    Surely its not too much to ask is it?
    
    WE NEED TO FOCUS NOW!!!!!!!!
    
    

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Natalie:

      14 Oct 2008 9:25:10am

      I agree - but I think we need to realise that it's not the planet that is in danger - the planet will survive as it has for millions of years. But many species and civilisations may very well not survive.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Ben:

      14 Oct 2008 10:04:27am

      Hi kevinisaspunk, don't get me wrong I want a start date of 2010 as I can afford it. But we need to remember there are many out there that can't (including some businesses which if they fold will have flow on job losses).
      
      In the end my opinion is only one (and I hope we do push ahead with the 2010 start date), but we live in a democracy and I feel this should be the number one topic going into the next election to allow all Australians to have their say (remember we become annoyed when things are pushed down our throats without our say - work choices is a prime example).
      
      In saying all this Australia does need to work on the amount of pollution per capita we produce as we are pretty poor performers in this field.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • kevinisaspunk:

        14 Oct 2008 10:35:23am

        Hi Ben,
        
        I see your point, however sometimes deomocracy can be a weakness because as a whole we will choose the wrong option. People generally are not going to like something that takes away some of their comforts and/or wealth so they are unlikely to support it...even though the alternative will be much worse.
        
        It will then be these people who will be in even poorer situations saying.."why didn't the government do anything"
        
        

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

• renn:

  14 Oct 2008 8:56:01am

  'Some discussion'
  The economic down turn is major! You make it sound soft, like it is just one of those things.
  Surely the lack of sales of fuel, people turning their lights and tvs and other appliances off, not eating as much and going nowhere is helping with climate change already. Its certainly affecting the economy.
  People are riding bikes, walking, sharing transport, catching public transport where possible. What more can we do?
  

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Natalie:

    14 Oct 2008 9:02:25am

    Hmmm...reduce our coal exports????

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • John O:

      14 Oct 2008 9:19:37am

      Yes lets remove one of the few things Australia actually produces. Good plan.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Natalie:

        14 Oct 2008 9:25:38am

        Read the post - reduce not remove....

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • renn:

      14 Oct 2008 9:27:28am

      Sounds like you have money than sense.
      Its so easy for some to sprout off about worrying about your hip pocket. What you fail to realise lots of people just dont have the money. Even solar panels are beyond most peoples pocket.
      
      'Hmmm...reduce our coal exports????' Good way to bankrupt a govt. in hard times.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Natalie:

        14 Oct 2008 10:09:19am

        We are mining at record levels - and we have been in a mining boom for some time now. I don't believe a reduction would equate to governmental bankruptcy. I'm not suggesting an extreme measure here.
        
        

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Zibethicus:

    14 Oct 2008 9:34:58am

    "People are riding bikes, walking, sharing transport, catching public transport where possible. What more can we do?"
    
    1) Become vegetarian. The farming of animals for meat, at least in the intensive agribusiness fashion, is extremely inefficient and consumes enormous amounts of resources, especially water. You can check this for yourself with a carbon footprint calculator.
    
    2) Be prepared to pay a renewable energy rate in your electricity bills.
    
    3) Improve, where possible, the insulation in your house. Avoid airconditioning.
    
    4) Join a local bushcare group if you're lucky enough to live anywhere near the bush. Reduce the prevalence of invasive exotic plant species in your neighbourhood.
    
    5) Support political policies which aim for sustainability.
    
    6) Inform yourself about the situation by making your own study. Listen to the scientists at least as much as the commentators.
    
    7) Get rid of your car altogether if it is possible for you to do so. One study claims that the production of the average family car generates nearly thirty tonnes of waste from the extraction and processing of the raw materials and the production process. This is before the car is even driven, and the water usage in the process is similarly enormous.
    
    Seven helpful suggestions.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • JC:

      14 Oct 2008 10:00:12am

      "Become Vegetarian." A great suggestion. We cant even feed the world now with the resources we have. Do you seriously think that by stopping livestock farming this is going to solve the problem? The substitutes still need to be grown - cereal crops, fruit trees, berry trees etc etc (some of which take seven to ten years to produce a viable crop). All of which place pressure on one of our scarcest resources - water. It doesnt just fall from the skies you know! (Well it used to anyway!!).
      
      How about just plain reduce and re-use where possible?
      
      
      

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Zibethicus:

        14 Oct 2008 10:12:20am

        "Do you seriously think that by stopping livestock farming this is going to solve the problem?"
        
        http://www.connectedwaters.unsw.edu.au/resources/articles/waterfootprints.html
        
        Because production of meat requires so many additional resources than those needed to produce crops, it has a much higher virtual water content. The feed and water consumed by farmed cattle, combined with a relatively long production time, contribute to a virtual water content of about 15500 litres per kilogram of beef. This equates to about 2400 litres for a hamburger and 8000 litres for a pair of leather shoes.
        
        (end quote)
        
        "How about just plain reduce and re-use where possible?"
        
        Absolutely. Why not do /all/ these things?

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • jh:

      14 Oct 2008 10:05:10am

      People keep banging on about how it is too expensive to reduce carbon emissions. Garbage. Most steps you take take to reduce emissions will put money in your pocket after the initial change or even right away. Put on Solar panels IF you can afford them, or if not flourescent bulbs. Re-use bags, switch lights and computers off, only boil the water you will use, etc etc. If you can, use a bicycle wherever you can or walk instead of the car. If you have two cars try and get rid of one (10k a year in your pocket right there). Reduce meat consumption to twice a week (health benefits as well). Lay off the booze a bit. Less consumption means less emissions.
      
      At a personal level, the very things you need to do to reduce emissions are the same things that will help you weather a financial downturn. Want to know how, ask your grandma, and you really will feel better for it. It's no biggie and you'll have more cash. We don't need to 'wreck' our lifestyles, most of us live like kings compared to the rest of the world. We just need to eliminate waste. An ETS will soon get us doing just that.

      Agree (1) Alert moderator

      • Natalie:

        14 Oct 2008 10:13:21am

        Agreed - I saw a comment yesterday about people having 'today tonight economic education'. It's the same with carbon. At a personal level there are many many ways to reduce your carbon footprint and increase the health of your wallet at the same time.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Joe Average:

  14 Oct 2008 8:59:45am

  We should keep moving forward with emission reductions and trading. It's nave to think the environment can be excluded from any discussion of economic management. They are intrinsically linked; the Murray Darling is a case in point.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Steve:

  14 Oct 2008 9:03:34am

  Wake up Don, get your head out of the sand! There is a world out there that is bigger than Woodside or even the Australian resources sector. Show some vision and leadership on this matter instead of insular small-mindedness.
  
  If we don't have an inhabitable planet it won't really matter what the markets are doing or whether we have jobs.

  Agree (1) Alert moderator

• Wake up Australia:

  14 Oct 2008 9:04:04am

  Australia is just about to enter a prolonged Recession and this clown government is seriously prepared to deliver an economic death blow courtesy of an Emission Trading Scam that is totally unnecessary?! An Emission Trading Scam is a luxury indulgence at best for a super strong economy and if we proceed as we will without any of the major emitter countries who are not crazy enough to sign this suicide note then heaven help us. Cue the AGW/CC Greenie harpies...

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Doh:

    14 Oct 2008 9:13:07am

    Agreed, but a major splurge into renewable energy sources would be a major positive at this time, killing two birds with one stone.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Brad:

      14 Oct 2008 11:23:02am

      Agreed. Now is the time to start building solar and wind farms and renewable energy manufacturing. This creates jobs, stimulates the economy and sets us up for exports when the rest of the world recovers.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Natalie:

    14 Oct 2008 9:22:50am

    Just wondering what alternatives you would propose...given the complexity of these two global issues (economic and climatic)

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Kevinisaspunk:

    14 Oct 2008 9:25:33am

    If you think the current financial crisis is serious...and you think the repucussions of not acting on climate change will be minor compared to this then I fear for all of us!

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Charles:

    14 Oct 2008 9:30:44am

    We'll refrain here from emotive derision and just state again that global warming will have a massively detrimental effect on the economy and the cost of doing nothing far outweighs the cost of such small responses as carbon trading and conversion from our fossil fuel culture.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Zibethicus:

    14 Oct 2008 9:36:35am

    "Cue the AGW/CC Greenie harpies..."
    
    Yup, harping on the truth. Of necessity. Until we listen or perish. The /real/ crisis, the environmental one, is only just /beginning/, bad as things currently are...

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • jh:

      14 Oct 2008 10:07:37am

      Hey Wake Up, wake up
      
      Less emotion and more reason please. The Europeans have had an ETS for years. Funnily enough the sky didn't fall in. It had problems and we can learn from those, but it did encourage development of renewable power sources.
      
      Cheers

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Doh:

        14 Oct 2008 10:18:13am

        Funny. I heard that the European trading scheme was an abject failure that only made a few brokers and traders richer.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Zibethicus:

        14 Oct 2008 10:19:04am

        I can only agree, although I personally think a carbon tax is what is called for. Once the true environmental cost of carbon emission is accounted for in one way or another, the true economic advantages of renewables and low-emission lifestyles become massively apparent, because they are then translated into the one language with the Deniosaurs and Oilcaholics seem to understand; the sacred language of Money.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Patch:

    14 Oct 2008 10:02:50am

    Wake up, i keep trying to tell you, but you should really know that the term 'climate change' was termed by deniers. This is a proven fact.
    
    But you seem immune to facts, its rapidly becoming absolutely not worthwhile trying to explain this thing, which honestly should be very basic to understand.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Hilary:

  14 Oct 2008 9:04:46am

  It is difficult to take Don Voelte seriously on this issue. At various times in the recent past he has opposed Australia taking action altogether and sought special exemptions for his industry (regardless of the costs this would impose on everyone else). For him now to call for a delay because of the current financial crisis leaves him open to the charge of being opportunistic.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Charles:

  14 Oct 2008 9:26:10am

  Don Voelte should start to look beyond his performance bonus for next year and perhaps think about the sustainability of his shareholder's profits.
  He should know that worldwide food shortages and economic collapse precipitated by global warming would cause a real worldwide depression.
  The stakes (habitable earth) are too high for short term thinkers like Don Voelte.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • renn:

    14 Oct 2008 9:45:23am

    Money is the reason for food shortages!
    It is a lack of money for innovative machinery and farming practices.
    It is Govts that put themselves first before their people effectively starving the population.
    If all the money spent on wars was put to better use to educate people on contraception and money management, to build environmentally friendly homes etc the world would be a better place.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Charles:

      14 Oct 2008 10:02:16am

      You misunderstand me.
      It WOULD be loss of arable land due to rising sea levels and catastrophic weather events. That's regardless of unsustainable agribusiness models...
      I agree with you on no-war, much needed education, contraception and enviro-homes though.
      

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Natalie:

      14 Oct 2008 10:06:14am

      Renn, Water shortage is a primary root of many food shortages. Climate-change-induced water shortages. Check out how Australia's rice growing industry is doing at the moment. Governments and middlemen merely compound the problem.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • The Abbott:

        14 Oct 2008 10:32:13am

        Natalie,
        Thinking that comment my need some verification.Politics certainly influences food produciton - ie souther Africa.
        Technology and innovation - education certainly influences food production - ie USSR, China, India last 50 years. Poor varieites, handling and storage practices etc
        Government regulation negative influences food production - ie Aust, NZ cost of business and numbers of new farmers
        Water influences food production - ie Israel, little water but food surplus.
        Govenment regulation postitive - ie USA - food surpluses
        
        At present you would be hard pressed to show research on how climate change has effected agriculture which is not hypothetical future prediction.
        

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Charles:

        14 Oct 2008 10:47:28am

        A couple more clarifications...
        The Middle East uses a lot of desal so the freshwater availability is not influential.
        Indian food availability has also been negatively influenced by agribusiness monopolies.
        Climate Change has affected farming practices and hence local (not imported) food availability. When Vegetation is cleared, rainfall is reduced and certain crops can no longer be produced in these changed climates.
        Global warming on the other hand will have a serious impact of food production globally.
        

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

• magoo:

  14 Oct 2008 9:44:20am

  Ms Wong should live by her principles and do business overseas by email rather than flying off on an airplane that emits more carbon emissions than most of us produce in a lifetime of irresponsible motoring.
  
  Does she and the rest of them cycle to work? I bet not.
  
  The simple solution to carbon emission problems; give everyone a free bicycle in exchange for their car keys during the week. Even for a sexagenerian, a five km cycle hardly raises a sweat if you do it every day each way, a ten km commute might demand a shower at the end but think of the savings on your domestic water-use!
  
  Unfortunately, successive Australian governments have failed to grasp the importance of building dedicated commuting cycle-ways. Instead they leave it to councils that can't get beyond the concept of dinky bikeways to be shared by doggies & toddlers with training wheels.
  
  Get serious Peter & Penny; your comments in the present and continuing crisis aren't worth a farthing. Your flights of fancy are environmental vandalism, whether you share your boarding pass with one other or or a plane load of fossil-fuel wasters.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

• ben-O:

  14 Oct 2008 9:53:55am

  It is odd that for what is a crisis of trust and confidence in world markets governments around the world can contribute trillions of dollars within weeks. For the climate change threat that, if the balace of scientific opinion is anything to go by, will be a threat to not just our way of life, but that of most other species on the planet and it is all just too expensive. Does anyone else think this is slightly weird.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

• bear:

  14 Oct 2008 9:55:18am

  Climate change is real. The financial crisis is real. These are two separate - and big - issues. What i would like to see is the science behind the climate change plan. It needs to be a scientific numbers based system. Not a money making scheme for anyone involved.
  
  For example Australia emits X tonnes of CO2 gases. Our farming sequesters Y tonnes of CO2 gases. Implement better processing methods and ensure sustainable agriculture is being utilised to bring these numbers together. Let the media know the actual figures of how much we emit, how much we sequyester and the end job is done. Australia is not a big emitter but we sequester HEAPS of Carbon.
  
  The global climate change plan it the biggie and that will effect global trade.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • magoo:

    14 Oct 2008 10:16:23am

    Climate change has always been real, it's just that climate 'scientists' can't work out which way we are swinging in the present decade/century/millenium. Climate change studies are best done retrospectively (changes in coral growth, examination of tree growth rings, etc) but we won't be alive to see those studies.
    
    The best we can do is speculate. One thing for sure is that Oz is a nett emitter of carbon, especially the fearsome flatulent one, methane. Time to change our diet from Cow & Pig to Roo & Croc. Consumption of the latter will preserve a few human lives. BTW, I don't remember ever being asked if I wanted to live in this new croc-re-infested environment. Crocs in Hervey Bay? Mooloolaba next and then the Gold Coast? That should clean out a few silvertails and curtail their gas emissions.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

• yabbie:

  14 Oct 2008 10:11:40am

  Woodside petrolium chief executive Don Voelte has obvious alterior motives.
  
  If CUB's chief executive attempted was pressuring government to rise blood alcohol levels levels for motorists from .05 to .1, would anyone listen?
  
  I suggest we get our advice from reputable sources rather than Woodside who are overtly biased. Finally, why does such a non-story even get media attention when this view is obviously biased and sabotages progress for climate change mitigation strategies.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

• bob:

  14 Oct 2008 10:42:03am

  You are a real Twit Wong, you want to push a huge cost burden onto every Australian and most of us can't afford it.
  And just to top it off you want us to go alone while the rest of the world waits.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Green:

  14 Oct 2008 10:46:42am

  Naysayers will always find reasons to delay an ETS, but that won't delay the effects of climate change.
  
  Stick to your guns, Penny!

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Anton:

  14 Oct 2008 10:47:38am

  Show me one State Government with any plans for a renewable power plant. It will take up to 7 years from the idea being mooted till it comes on line. We need not just one, but around ten to fifteen for each State if we are to replace those coal fired plants, because CCS is still just a dream, and thirty years off at best that's if they can prove it works. Where can you bury 200 million tons of CO2 every year, just from the coal fired power source alone. That's the scope of it.
  
  The costs for any renewable plant are fantastically large, and those costs will be passed to consumers.
  
  Even the ETS which will increase electricity bills by 40% is not enough to pay for even one small renewable plant.
  It's just money that will flow in to the Federal Government.
  If Australia burns coal to produce 78% of its power, those State Governments, as owners of the plants become the largest emitters in their State.
  Renewables currently provide less than 1% of power used, and wind and solar only one third of that one percent.
  There are no plans in any State Government future for even small plants, let alone on the scale needed.
  Where is the money for those plants going to come from?
  Even the private sector will not construct them because they won't be able to get the loans to start. A Even a small plant will cost in the vicinity of a billion.
  Cape Wind in Massachusetts will cost AUD1.6Billion, and will only produce 175MW nameplate power from its 130 three MW towers spread over 65 square kilometres.
  The CPRS is just a new tax, because it will make no REAL discernible difference in people's electricity usage considering more than 65% of all electricity is used in the non residential sector.
  Show me one State Government with a renewable plant in their future, a plant of any size at all.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Zibethicus:

    14 Oct 2008 11:00:25am

    According to the special report on renewable energy in this week's 'New Scientist; (No 2677 11 October 2008), a compressed-air energy storage plant for capturing wind power will cost (all figures in USD, see 'Saving up for a windless day' p 31) "around $600 or $750 per installed kilowatt to build... Coal-fired power stations cost $476 to build..."
    
    If these figures are correct then - and it is only one example of a renewable technology - surely if an ETS is introduced such a plant would very rapidly become economically competitive with a coal plant, making it possible for a government to finance the construction of such a a plant?

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Pam:

    14 Oct 2008 11:05:40am

    While there are those that will argue for and those that will argue against an ETS we ALL need to stop talking and accept some responsibility for the world we live in.
    
    We are over indulgent, over fed, and wasteful....we would all do well to consider Prof. Barry Brooks 10 steps to reducing CO2!!
    
    http://www.buildsydney.com.au/buildeco/index.html?aai=1221468615

    Agree (0) Alert moderator