Dishonest Advertising on the ETS: AEF Media Release
Posted by jennifer, December 29th, 2008 - under News, Opinion.
Tags: Carbon Trading, Economics
GetUp’s global warming television ads (to air today) are dishonest and inaccurate, according to Dr Jennifer Marohasy, Chair of the Australian Environment Foundation.
“For all sorts of reasons a number of groups, of which Internet campaigners GetUp.org.au are one, are pretending that the Rudd Government’s proposed Emissions Trading Scheme is a minor 5 to15 percent adjustment to our way of life”.
“In fact, the government’s ETS will reduce the amount of energy available to every man; woman and child currently living in the country by an extraordinary 35 percent, absent the discovery and implementation of an unknown source of carbon free energy in the next ten years”.
Dr Marohasy said that this would be the equivalent of closing down all of Australia’s manufacturing and half its rural industries.
“Or thought of another way, it is the equivalent of closing 72% of our current power generation capacity (stationary power)”.
Dr Marohasy said that population growth masked the severity of the scheme.
“Our natural birth-rate plus immigration intake adds around 360,000 to the population every year, roughly the equivalent of another Brisbane every 5 years – 20 percent growth in 11 years – making 35% look like 15%”.
Dr Marohasy said that it was understandable that groups like GetUp that stand for nothing and are opposed to everything would want to downplay the severity of the government’s proposals.
“If GetUp has nothing to complain about they are out of business, so of course they want to portray the government’s decision in the ‘worst’ light”.
She said that the government also has a vested interest in downplaying the severity of their scheme.
“Kevin Rudd wants to convince Australians that it won’t hurt one little bit, so he’s happy for groups like GetUp to criticize him for being John Howard lite.
In fact, the proposed ETS will make Australians poorer; while it is richer, not poorer nations that are better able to protect their natural environment”.
********************************************
Sources:
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/inventory/enduse/pubs/vol1-summary.pdf
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3101.0/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brisbane
The Australian Environment Foundation (AEF) is a not-for-profit, membership-based environment organisation having no political affiliation. The AEF is a different kind of environment group, caring for both Australia & Australians. Many of our members are practical environmentalists – people who actively use and also care for the environment. We accept that environmental protection and sustainable resource use are generally compatible. For more information about the AEF, visit www.aefweb.info
Yes Timmy – off you go now. You’re an unpublished whiney little ranter. Report back when you’ve achieved something. This diversion as a response to Smith and Power on SOI trends is a disgrace. Piss off.
Typical one man band above; Luke.
I think Tim Curtin is a very funny when he can continually put himself above BoM, CSIRO, GISS, Hadley etc then crap on about class action to save his rearguard position. I guess too if the truth be known; those heads at ANZ came from the same school as Tim.
Always in denial, hey.
BTW, I notice experts like Tim have no idea of the value in readings made by a lamp swinging with the swell in port and at sea that might relate to those from outposts based in distant lands.
Also they won’t go near SL for a back up.
Jeremy, I think there is a pathology at work here. When confronted with one example of your actual use of the words you just deny them. It wasn’t the only time that you used them, and the discussion was quite clearly about construction. All you had to do was say, “Sorry, I was wrong”. And speaking of wrong, I haven’t made a comment on the issue of “negative costs”. So perhaps you could try using those words “Sorry, I was wrong” for trying to fit me up with one of Louis’s raves.
Still, you turned-up some useful reports, not that they tend to support your case. The IEA identifies 8.2 Gigatonnes which could be abated by 2030, which tends to be supported by McKinsey’s slides which identify a bit over 5 Gigatonnes available through efficiencies, about 20%. Not enough I am afraid to make the difference.
Interestingly, the paper by Pears throws up a couple of facts. One appears to be that efficiencies of 25% or so appear to be achievable in the situations he references. Still leaves 16% to be found by 2020, even if you assume you can overhaul all of our capital stock in the next 10 years, a vain hope given that there are barely enough tradesmen to do the home renovations that people want for reasons of leisure and lifestyle reasons.
But he also highlights something which I was aware of, but had forgotten, and this really does go to the heart of what is possible. And that is that energy efficiency in specific instances doesn’t tend to lead to a less energy intensive economy. The reason for this is that as efficiencies lead to savings (negative costs) that allows money to be allocated elsewhere, and inasmuch as economic activity and energy consumption go together the reallocated money produces its own demand for energy. So efficiencies don’t lead to an overall decrease in emissions. They tend to lead to increases in emissions in other areas. Which is an answer to Luke’s argument that my figuring couldn’t be correct because it didn’t allow for efficiencies.
The bottom line of Pears’ paper is that the only way you can actually significantly cut national emissions is to substitute non-carbon based fuel sources, or reduce standards of living by an amount commensurate with the reductions desired. Makes Jennifer’s release stronger, not weaker.
Possibly Graeme – but your argument against efficiencies helping is without an ETS !
And still waiting on sinks….
Luke, I assume by “Graeme” you mean me. How is an ETS supposed to make a difference? If you had an argument I guess you would have run it. Could be interesting to do an analysis of trolling rhetorical techniques. This is a pretty standard one – raise an unrelated issue as an objection and run away without attempting to argue your point. The tactic appears to be designed both to distract debate from the real issues and to attempt to confuse casual readers who haven’t been following the thread too closely.
And on the issue of sinks, if you do an analysis of Australia and its emissions you will find that as a country we have more than enough sinks to absorb all of our emissions. So there is no need, judged nationally, for us to worry about CO2 emissions at all, even if you accept the AGW hypothesis.
So, let’s get back to the basic issue. Jennifer’s release stands. You’ve made no dint in it, and in fact the discussion suggests that she has been more conservative than even the government! Pretty good going.
Oh I’m sorry “Graham”. I know pretentious prima donnas are sensitive but I nevertheless apologise for spelling your name incorrectly.
As far as I’m concerned you’re the one that’s totally disingenuous. So don’t try and bully me matey.
The AEF has produced NO ANALYSIS AT ALL of the full implications of an ETS – INCLUDING EFFICIENCY. Despite your pathetic pseudo-economic defense of “well we’d spend the money on something else that would generate emissions”.
I assume you’d like comment here to be that of a bunch of back-slapping pseudo-sceptics and non-greenhouse theorists – essentially that of an echo- chamber.
As so new sinks are not important in this issue?
In reality anyone serious would giggle at the trivial analysis so far as there has been no serious attempt whatsoever to make a calculation of what savings might be made given an ETS incentive.
Anyone who’s followed this argument is well used to pseudo-sceptics loading the scales.
If you’re going to have a shot at the ETS – at least pass the giggle test in the attempt.
Luke, you’re just waving your arms again. If you have no return argument don’t respond. It’s actually getting embarrassing watching your flailing.
And, yes, the reports presented by Jeremy are replete with logic holes, which means the ETS is also.
BTW, I just did a quick calculation of the ROI on doing three of the major efficiency proposals, replacement HE furnace/AC, efficient window replacements, and increased insulation. Assuming a moderate efficiency gain of 11.5% total for all three [assuming the original house was not a barn] then the ROI would take a measly 53 years to break even.
Want to talk about the giggle test? Sheesh!!
Graham,
In your post where you talked about Alan Pear’s paper you wrote:
“he also highlights something which I was aware of, but had forgotten, and this really does go to the heart of what is possible. And that is that energy efficiency in specific instances doesn’t tend to lead to a less energy intensive economy”
and you went on to write “So efficiencies don’t lead to an overall decrease in emissions. They tend to lead to increases in emissions in other areas”.
Graham, thats what Alan Pears refers to across his paper as the Rebound Effect and in the literature it goes by that name as well as a number of others e.g. Jevons Paradox. Its a well known and complex topic but in reading Alan Pear’s paper and making comments about it you neglected to refer to what he said about it. This is some of what he said:
“when considering this form of rebound effect, it is more appropriate to look at the issue as an outcome of cultural values” (page 4) under the topic he called, Technological/cultural rebound.
Going on further with what he wrote under the heading he called Economic Rebound Pears wrote,
“The point of discussing these various possible outcomes of improving energy efficiency is to
highlight the fact that they can vary from large rebound effects to large amplification effects.” (page 5).
What “specific instances” are you referring to when you wrote that post above (let alone contradicting yourself), if they are the one Alan Pears refers to shouldn’t you acknowledge him or were you thinking of other ones?. Pears disagrees with you what you wrote in your post yet your post makes no mention at all of this.
Then your post finished with you writing something very confusing about Pear’s paper…..
You wrote:
“The bottom line of Pears’ paper is that the only way you can actually significantly cut national emissions is to substitute non-carbon based fuel sources, or reduce standards of living by an amount commensurate with the reductions desired”
Now that is completely at odds with what what Alan Pears actuallywrote in his conclusion which included this:
“aggressive pursuit of energy efficiency offers an exciting opportunity to reduce total energy costs
and greenhouse gas emissions while improving quality of life and business productivity.” (page 17).
How did you arrive at that?
Are you a journalist? I’m only asking because you seem to be making the mistakes a generalist reporter makes when they are given a specialist topic for the first time and are up against a deadline (and of course while the subs can correct your writing they don’t have time to go over the accuracy of your content). You know the sort of mistakes…scanning a document hoping to pick the eyes out of it rather than reading it and ending up missing what the author actually says. Anyway, just curious.
I understand an apology is in order. So. Louis Hissink it was a mistake on my part to lump you in with Graham Young. I will be more careful in the future.
BTW Jennifer I am making my way slowly through the Yale ESI stuff. Its interesting.
Anyway its good night from London
Luke: if I had your address I would mail you the January issue of Quadrant for free. Otherwise check your newsagent. I await your point by point rebuttals with interest, hoping that you will refrain this year from the ad homs you normally rely on.
Gavin: of course I overlooked that Cap’n Cook sailed up the Congo in c1776 – not to mention the Limpopo, Zambezi, and Upper Nile taking temps all along the way and then mailing them, post-dated – to GISS, with its remarkable data base of global temps from the beginning of time.
Somehow Timmy I don’t think climate bilge spread by pseudo-sceptics in a right-wingers comic book will be an unbalanced account. Anyway they’ve got the right editor these days LOLZ.
From which we have to conclude that Luke is an unbalanced leftwinger spruiking climate bilge published by pseudoscientists in biassed and censorious science journals.
Tim, you will never get Luke’s email address – they guy has serious personality disorders and I doubt that his appelation “Luke Walker” is real as well.
Now let’s waity for the next torrent of Lukian Bilge.
Haven’t read the whole thread so I might be repeating someone.
Looks to be another La Nina starting up. Of course, this would fit into the ~30 year interval for PDO. Sorry about that you CO2 enthusiasts. Back to back La Ninas should start stretching your hallucinations nicely!!
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
The debate between Jeremy C and Graham is interesting; just checked on Jeremy’s Pear’s link and the McKinsey graph on energy substitution and abatement. Quite frankly I find these links both unbeliveable and insidious. The McKinsey graph is ridiculous; fuel efficient vehicles provide a -ve cost? Hello, anyone heard of the debacle called the Prius? And sugarcane biofuel creating a negative cost obviously doesn’t factor in the people starving from the loss of agricultural land [ie it's not all good-news stories about Australian farmers using former sugar-cane waste for the product; former agricultural food producing land will be involved]; good to see Nuclear is at a mere +ve abatement position; pity every green worth his dreadlocks would froth at the mouth if it was even suggested that nuclear be introduced; for a more reasonable perspective on fuels Thinking Man at 8:03 pm can’t be beat;
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/11/wind-power-exposed-the-renewable-energy-source-is-expensive-and-unreliable/?cp=all
The pear’s effort is astounding; this
“In developing scenarios for the future, it is appropriate to assume that people will seek higher levels of comfort and amenity, but these trends have upper limits. For example… the length of a shower is constrained by the need to go to work or the tendency for skin to shrivel up.”
Not to worry, this urge for uber cleanliness can be countered by “aggressive mandatory energy efficiency standards” and “education and information programs”; how very Orwellian. All this talk about efficiency has the imprimatur of ascetism and puritanical stoicism. It begs the question; why do we have to be more efficient? Peak oil? Environmental degradation? Greed and selfishness are bad? Because its moral to be thrifty not profligate? Saving the planet? Self-discipline is good for the soul? Whatever, just don’t pretend its AGW.
Cohhers – you bulldust knows no bounds – sugar cane production of biofuel is going to lead to starvation in Australia – hohohohohohohoho – food producing land – what a line !!!!!! I kacked !
And we’ve just come off 127 litres of water per person per day in SEQ up to 155. Nobody died. Showers were had. The washing got done…. sheeshhhh !!! And a long way from the profligate waste of 300 per day.
Pull the other ones Cohers. And take your pinky off the scales.
Some quotes from Jeremy C from the first link.
There is agreement approaching consensus that a successful program of action on climate change must support two objectives—stabilizing atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs) and maintaining economic growth. Achieving both these aims will require a tenfold increase in “carbon productivity,” the amount of GDP produced per unit of carbon equivalents (CO2e) emitted. The economic costs of this “carbon revolution” are likely to be manageable at some 0.6–1.4 percent of global GDP by 2030.
The “carbon revolution” that is necessary is comparable in magnitude to the labor productivity increases of the Industrial Revolution but will have to be achieved in one-third of the time if the world is to maintain current growth levels while meeting commonly discussed abatement targets.
There are five areas on which we should focus. First, boosting energy efficiency could cut global energy demand by 20-24 percent of projected 2020 demand. Second, to reduce emissions by one-fifth of current levels by 2020, the carbon productivity of energy sources must increase by two-thirds. Third, additional investment in R&D and incentives to boost innovation will be necessary. Fourth, companies and governments can do more to educate consumers on “green” behavior. Fifth, forestation and avoided forestation offer the largest abatement lever at 25 percent of the global total under €40 per ton.
I would quote from the other links. However, the problem is the sam as the link for Swedish smelting. The links are for thinktank general scenario compilations. Which makes JC’s comment of “”Are you a journalist? I’m only asking because you seem to be making the mistakes a generalist reporter makes when they are given a specialist topic for the first time and are up against a deadline (and of course while the subs can correct your writing they don’t have time to go over the accuracy of your content). You know the sort of mistakes…scanning a document hoping to pick the eyes out of it rather than reading it and ending up missing what the author actually says. Anyway, just curious.”" humorous. These linked do not give the type of information needed nor in a real sense can they.
Consider the discussion of the Jevons Paradox. It is proposed to avert this. How? Your guess is as good as any. These are position papers, not papers with ROI, expected lifetime/depreciation, MTBF (mean time between failure), present cost/future worth calculations, etc. No lifetime cycle studies, etc. Though please note such difficult goals such it requires a 10 fold increase in carbon productivity in an area where 10% increase in effecicensy in say a natural gas boiler would mean a ROI as little as a year depending on cost per decatherm. But the claim is made that there are all these opportunities. Not really, they assume technologicl advances. A good asssumption but hard to quantify. Not a problem here because the basis of the quantification are not given. No mention of incremental cost or incremental changeover costs, even though economy of scale is mentioned. How about the lifetime of enegy sources is presenty 20+ years. Where is the detail showing the loss of revenue or the adjusted costs for energy source changeovers that occur for current energy sources built recently or schedued to be built?
[...] an emissions trading scheme – officially named the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. I have previously suggested that this scheme may reduce the amount of energy available to every man; woman and child currently [...]
[...] Förljugen annonsering om utsläppsrätter kritiseras december 29, 2008 — Magnus Pressmeddelande från Australien. Dishonest Advertising on the ETS: AEF Media Release [...]
ETS/ CPRS:
Where we are now.
We are currently living in a system of oil and coal. This is unsustainable as eventually we’ll run out.
It does tremendous damage to our environment via damaging our gases in the air, the litter, oil spills, ‘climate change’, smoke making it harder to breath, smog which is killing our children and elderly, sewerage dumped into the ocean.
We are also heavily vulnerable to foreigner stock market speculators who manipulate the price of oil in order to make more money.
Where we want to be.
In a system where Australia and the whole world is run on clean renewable energy.
It will do wonders for our environment – it will create a world in which humans and nature can live in a peaceful coexistence, which is a world no one can disagree with.
And it will protect us from speculators by making us energy independent from others.
The biggest problem is that those renewable energy technologies haven’t been properly developed and created yet.
So how do we get from A to B?
a) Government intervention. Nationalise the entire energy sector, push tonnes of capital into renewable energy investments. When those technologies come available, disband the oil and coal industries and make the whole country run on renewables. Outlaw other types of energy sources.
b) Neo-liberalism. Don’t do anything. Allow the invisible hand of the ‘free market’ to eventually bring us to renewable energy.
c) Tax and spend. Put a tax on carbon, which will eventually make oil and coal so expensive to use that it will force capitalists to invest into renewable energies. (The extra revenue collected from the tax can assist further government programs.) But by giving millions of dollars in credits, you are reducing the impact of the very program you’re pushing in place for that reason.
Of course, this is a tax on the poor and working class, while the rich don’t get affected at all.
d) Make investment cheap as chips. Put a tax onto the rich, while will gain a certain level of extra government revenue.
Use this money to give credit and tax cuts to all capitalists who invest money into renewable energy.
Capitalists will go anywhere if it means they can make money – so make renewable energy such a delicious option that they can’t resist it.
e) Don’t do anything. Claim that the environment isn’t being damaged at all by coal and oil, and that everything is just fine the way it is now.