Australian Emissions Policy Decision Tree

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

38 Responses to Australian Emissions Policy Decision Tree

  1. John Michelmore

    I think you might have missed an opportunity to get people to vote for a party that does not support our destruction; instead of do nothing. You encourage acceptance rather than some kind of affirmative action!!

  2. stackja

    Voters need to do something.

  3. mh

    Should Australia sign an economic suicide note? –> Yes–> Vote Coalition. Vote Labor. Vote Green.

  4. Bruce of Newcastle

    I get ‘no’ at line two or three. So we should do nothing.

    I also get ‘no’ at lines 4-8. No. 9 is debatable since China produces far more CO2 than any other country on Earth yet doesn’t have to do anything under the Paris Agreement.

    Global temperatures are still flat since 2002 if you discount the el Ninos. Furthermore sea surface temperatures and ocean heat content is starting to fall off a cliff, especially in the northern hemisphere. I can’t see global temperatures holding up if the oceans are cooling.

    12 New Papers: North Atlantic, Pacific, And Southern Oceans Are Cooling As Glaciers Thicken, Gain Mass (yesterday)

  5. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    Well, I needed a cardigan in Tahiti last week. Pity I didn’t pack one.

    What is NXT? If no, vote Australian Conservatives or PHON.

  6. Justin

    Pretty good effort though I suspect the tree could go on forever. One suggestion for another box. If Australia sequesters (though its extensive vegetation and coastline) more CO2 than it emits (especially producing materials / goods for other countries to consume) should it do more by destroying its energy sector?

  7. Leo G

    Surely all streams of the Australian Emissions Policy Decision flowchart should lead to the same advice- do no harm. Moreover, the “do nothing” advice does nothing to stop those decision makers who have made irrational choices.

  8. Tim Neilson

    Good work Spart, but I think in about box 9 where you write “Despite being an carbon dioxide emitter” you mean “Despite being an immaterially small carbon dioxide emitter” or something like that.

  9. duncanm

    Spartacus

    I’m afraid you’ve fallen into the trap of using logic and reasoning.

    That’ll never fly.

    Its the vibe.

  10. Deplorable

    Should we withdraw from the Paris and any other Agreement? Yes

  11. TheSemiMentalBloke

    I needed a cardi in Gosford last week so I posted in the Cat to big note myself.

  12. H B Bear

    All roads lead to the UniParty.

  13. OldOzzie

    Coal hard facts about power shore up AGL’s stance on Liddell

    The simple facts from where Andy Vesey sits are that wind power is now at least 38 per cent cheaper than coal, solar is 16 per cent cheaper and the gaps are getting wider by the day.

    That explains why Vesey is holding the line against the Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s push to extend the life of an ageing coal plant.

    The market has long known AGL generates over 90 per cent of its power from coal but we are talking about future production not history.

    AGL’s marketing the future because that is what its customers want to see and those customers also happen to be voters.

    Right now, concerns number one, two and three are power prices and few care where it comes from so long as it’s cheaper.

    The maths from AGL’s perspective work like this: a coal fired plant costs $110 a megawatt hour to run.

    This compares to wind at $55 an hour plus another $25 an hour of so called firming power, which is the back-up provided by a gas-fired plant to cover the wind if there is none or if it is too strong for the turbines. A solar plant works out at $70 an hour plus $25 firming power.

    These are the numbers.

    The reason why power prices have sky rocketed is the law of supply and demand, including in gas.

    ACCC boss Rod Sims has in the past pounded the table about the evils of the big generators being owned by the big retailers including AGL.

    He has lost twice now in court on the issue and, according to Frontier Economics in work done for AGL, it actually works the other way, retailers owning power tends to mitigate price increases.

    Sims UK comrades at the UK Competition Marketing Authority concluded in its report on the industry last year “we have not identified any areas in which vertical integration is likely to have a detrimental impact on competition for independent suppliers and generators. In addition we consider that there may be some efficiencies resulting from vertical integration which may be passed through to customers.”

    The politics is equally simple, punters are hopping mad that after decades of political inaction they are paying record-high rates for their power.

    If you are a politician who has failed to make any decisions to help the punters, the convenient response is to find another villain.

    That person is Andy Vesey who certainly doesn’t help himself by unloading $1.2 million worth of stock in the middle of the political storm. Selling company shares at any time is a bad look for a chief executive but right now it is shocking.

    That said, it’s time to get the facts straight on energy policy and for some decisions from Canberra.

    From the Comments

    – Only because us mug taxpayers are subsidising the renewables industry, please spell out the truth and facts.

    – Excellent news – so we can now stop all taxpayer subsidies and quotas for renewable energy.

    – Rubbish, unreliable and inconsistency is the core problem of renewable energy, price is another story. No matter how cheap, when the sun goes down, no power.

    – The Paris Agreement, the agreement that see’s us exporting our standard of living in exchange for nearer to third world standard of living, is behind this.

    Our government negotiated a bad deal for us and should immediately walk away from it.

    – Seriously Mr Durie?

    Wind and solar are even cheaper to run when the wind don’t blow and the sun don’t shine.

    Does base load power come into the frame?

    How cheap are wind and solar if they are forced to build in baseload power into their mix?

    What a load of BS!

  14. Blind Freddie

    If Australia closes coal powered power stations while developing countries build hundreds every year can you list any benefits? Yes/No

  15. H B Bear

    Durie must have thought he was still filing copy for Australia’s leading anti-business business pamphlet aka the AFR.

  16. Bruce of Newcastle

    The simple facts from where Andy Vesey sits are that wind power is now at least 38 per cent cheaper than coal, solar is 16 per cent cheaper and the gaps are getting wider by the day.

    If that is true then it is only true because of

    – subsidies to wind and solar
    – royalties applied to coal
    – green and red tape preventing new coal mines
    – enforced purchase of wind and solar and no enforced load levelling technology (eg batteries)
    – not accounting for the cost of gas backup capital cost
    – not accounting for the forced inefficiency imposed upon gas and coal because of intermittency
    – RET
    – no mandatory compensation to neighbours next to wind turbines whose property value has collapsed or whose health has been harmed
    – no fines for bird or bat kills – which cost oil companies about $2,000 or more per dead bird

    If the fines imposed on oil companies were imposed on wind far operators the industry would die faster than a golden eagle impacted by a turbine blade. Why is one mob penalized and the other mob given a free pass to cause carnage to wildlife?

    Vampires think they don’t cost their victims too much. After all the prey are still alive after harvesting aren’t they?

  17. the sting

    At least the Nationals conference in Canberra on the weekend voted to end the RET. Small beginnings but on the right track.

  18. derFRED

    If Carbon Dioxide is so pollutey, why aren’t these loonies advocating to ban all fizzy beverages?

  19. manalive

    Global temperatures are still flat since 2002 if you discount the el Ninos …

    You can actually go back 20 years since when there has been no significant warming of the lower troposphere where you would expect to find any CO2 induced warming.
    And if anyone suggests that is ‘cherry picking’ a period it’s not, there has been no warming from any cause for the past 20 years. Period.
    BTW dangerous Climate Change™ as espoused by Hansen and the IPCC was based in the late ’80s on a mere 10 years of empirical evidence.
    But even if human-induced warming were an important factor that wouldn’t make wind and solar viable sources of energy for the future.

  20. Louis

    You forgot that on every level when your answer would be no you have to ask ‘would saying yes give me undeserved moral authority and an ability to wield unaccountable power?’.

  21. IRFM

    There is one question that needs to be answered before anyone completes the decision tree. That question is CO2 the real driver of climate change? Ever since chemist Arrhenius produced his forecast tables there has been no questioning of his theory. Nor has anyone questioned the role of CO2 in the 32 recognised greenhouse gases given its small percentage of the total greenhouse fraction. Work done by M/s Nova and her colleagues suggest the CO2 is post change not the precursor as the alarmist industry would have us believe. It is a fine distinction but a good one. For years the weather nuts have been saying that large scale hurricanes form over hotter waters which must have been created by AGW activity. But no, ‘Irma’ is 2C colder than the average – another theory shot down. In fact there is no premise to begin to follow the decision tree except 1. Tick ‘No’ and tick ofte.

  22. Pete of Perth

    In reality the no path is high-jacked by the unproductive screaming DENIER and our spineless over-lords follow suit by asking the productive to bend over to pick up the soap.

  23. Gab

    Tim Neilson
    #2495550, posted on September 12, 2017 at 12:15 pm

    Good work Spart, but I think in about box 9 where you write “Despite being an carbon dioxide emitter” you mean “Despite being an immaterially small carbon dioxide emitter” or something like that.

    What Tim said. Also, you might like to inlcide the figure for Australia: 1.3% of global CO2 emissions, of which only 0.3% is attributed to man0made CO2. Bruce may want to check that last figure.

  24. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    I needed a cardi in Gosford last week so I posted in the Cat to big note myself.

    You’re not semi-mental, you’re fully mental. This is the Cat, not the socialist collective.
    In you’re in Gosford do something useful and tear down a poster there from the lunatic preacher.
    Earn your stripes to be a bullshit artist here.

  25. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    And apols, Stimpy, if you see this. You are very nicely mental. Not the same thing at all.

  26. Crossie

    This compares to wind at $55 an hour plus another $25 an hour of so called firming power, which is the back-up provided by a gas-fired plant to cover the wind if there is none or if it is too strong for the turbines. A solar plant works out at $70 an hour plus $25 firming power.

    Now cancel all subsidies and see how much it really costs. Then let renewables compete freely with coal and gas.

    As long as taxpayers are being forced to artificially boost renewables we will not see cheap electricity. We had cheap and efficient power but that had to change if green revolutionaries had any chance of crippling our economy.

    Mission accomplished! Congratulations Malcolm, Josh Freydenberg and that nong Greg Hunt.

  27. TheSemiMentalBloke

    Goodness. Touched a nerve did we?

  28. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    Touched a nerve did we?

    Trolls and/or fools always say things like that. Talk about self-aggrandizement.

  29. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    ps mental one, if you want to go on thread-wrecking (not sticking to the substantive issue and resorting to personal attack, for which you’ve already receive my knuckle-rap), go ahead.
    Don’t expect me to join you.

  30. Deplorable

    Anyone else just receive Dodo notification of huge increase in electricity charges from Oct 1st.

    Which government is pushing prices down?

    This country is so stuffed we will all be using candles and living in humpys soon. Back 60000 years to the future. Time for some pressure Pauline and Cory

  31. TheSemiMentalBloke

    The bigger the hat Madam, the smaller the property.

  32. Mark A

    Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare
    #2495809, posted on September 12, 2017 at 6:05 pm

    I needed a cardi in Gosford last week so I posted in the Cat to big note myself.

    This looks suspiciously like the MO of a certain sock.

  33. egg_

    Martin Trumble has Liddel ado about nothing.

  34. cohenite

    My electricity bill went up 45%. I negotiated with Energy Australia and increased the discount by 50% for the NEXT bill.

    Vote in order:

    PHON
    SFF
    ALA
    Cory/ Leyonhjelm

  35. old bloke

    That’s a good chart Spartacus, but I agree with John Michelmore (first post) when he said the “Do Nothing” should be replaced by “Do Something”.

    That “Something” would be to vote for a party whose stated position is to do away with the RET and all green subsidies, and there are plenty of parties who hold that position. Don’t sit around complaining about things, fight the buggers.

    The next election will be interesting if the Nats really push their abolish the RET policy, and move into the ‘burbs to fight the Liberals, there would be a few upsets.

  36. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    Mark A – I don’t think it’s Grigs.
    There is more than one idiot posting in the Cat.

  37. karl

    How long before we see the old joke-what did we have before candles? Answer-electricity.

  38. Duderino

    Is the main contributor to climate change human activity?

    Why do nothing if human activity contributes 49%, ie the answer to this question is no? Climate change isn’t binary, it’s a continuum of consequences. If the answers to the first three questions are yes, then even if this one is no, there is still a need to do more than nothing.

    Is the biggest contributor to human caused climate change the emission of carbon dioxide?

    Technically yes, but other greenhouse gases contribute, and also some of the contributors to human caused climate change are not emissions but things like clearing forests. Here’s an example of what that looks like.

    This means the flowchart is starting to get off track. But let’s follow the rabbit hole.

    Will a reduction of human caused carbon dioxide stop or reverse climate change?

    Depends on the reduction. Heck, some analysts are saying that stopping the current trend of climate change will require going beyond a reduction to zero and will require actively extracting greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. Fingers crossed we’re not at that point yet. Anyway, if the answer is “no but it will mitigate the consequences in a net-positive result”, then again, there is still a need to do more than nothing.

    Is the best way to reduce human caused carbon dioxide emissions is by implementing the highest cost solution?

    What? The least-cost solution is always best, so the answer to the question is no. But to therefore do nothing doesn’t make any sense. The answer is “no, do the least-cost solution”. Not nothing (remember we have to had answered yes to all previous questions to reach this point). This flowchart has abandoned a flowchart structure. But let’s press on, we’re almost at the end.

    Should carbon dioxide emissions abatement policies disproportionately punish developed countries?

    Punish? When I split a restaurant bill, I don’t claim to be punished because I have to pay for my truffle lobster when everyone else had the blue-plate special. I guess accurate language is being abandoned by the flowchart along with rational structure.

    This seems to be a heavily edited version of what I’m pretty sure what used to be an honest attempt at making a question-answer cascade that pinpointed where climate skeptics diverged from accepted wisdom. This one starts with small diversions and then accelerates off a cliff.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *