|
Some thoughts on global warming policy, and Latham
Dear ,
Donald Trump is pulling the US out of the Paris Accord, and the earth is still spinning on its axis, and doesn't appear much warmer (in fact it is colder here at Greenslopes).
You can expect some of the same when Mark Latham speaks at the Coorparoo RSL (click here to book): shock, awe and commonsense.
So I thought I'd take the opportunity to remind you about the Latham function, this Friday at 6:00 for 6:30 (we're up to 80, but room for more), but also to give you some idea of where the AIP is positioned on power generation and global warming as these are key issues for Australia and the rest of the world.
The US exit from Paris gives us an opportunity to recalibrate and get things right, based on good science, and a proper risk and reward assessment.
Australia faces a crisis which has been caused by both sides of politics. Friday the Finkel Report on Energy Security will go to cabinet. Monday, the Queensland government announced its "Powering Queensland" plan. Neither will do much to rectify the underlying problems.
Australian power prices are rising by design. Renewables are more expensive than traditional generation in most situations. The only way they can be competitive is to subsidise them, or to penalise the cheaper forms of generation. Australia has chosen the subsidy route both directly through grants, and indirectly, by giving them first priority in the electricity supply system and forcing retailers to purchase at often above market rates. This is compounded by the federal government and state governments having different targets and aims.
The result is what we saw in South Australia last year - high power prices, and shortages leading in some cases to blackouts. With the closure of Hazelwood, next year looks grim, and shortages are inevitable at times of peak demand.
The question is, how do we fix this problem? We can fix the supply issue by building more baseload generation, but given the idiotic policies of all major political parties, who will outlay $3bn for an asset that may be sabotaged by a new or existing government, state or federal, or even potentially by the senate?
Taxpayers could build it, but without change to the underlying system, the cost could be crippling.
What I am about to suggest is not a complete plan, but it provides some thoughts as to the way ahead. Now that we have some international leadership that is plain speaking, and not inclined to go along with things just to be "nice", there are opportunities to move in a rational direction.
- Accept the opportunity offered by the US president to negotiate a meaningful international agreement, rather than one like Paris, which offered only a 0.05 degree decrease in temperature by 2100 (calculated using IPCC figures).
- Base the new agreement on a reassessment of the science ensuring that funding is used to investigate positive aspects of CO2 emissions as well as negative aspects.
- Fund research into the robustness of specific items of scientific research, via programs to confirm experimental results, and to test and examine procedures and calculations (this is applicable to much more than climate science with even the Guardian acknowledging we have a problem with science publishing).
- Base the new agreement on a realistic assessment of the costs and benefits arising from CO2 emissions. This should include things like rising living standards from cheap power, greening of the planet because of increased CO2 levels and temperatures, decreases in drought, decreases in cyclones and hurricanes, decreases in death due to cold, and increases in longevity due to economic progress etc. as well as the presumed negatives.
- Guarantee that emissions are not exported from industrially advanced countries to other countries and then reimported as manufactured goods, thus leading to no significant net decrease in emissions per unit of economic growth.
- Accept the possibility that with existing technologies it is impossible to reduce world CO2 emissions as economies grow, and that the appropriate response may be adaptation rather than mitigation.
- In assessing technologies, include all, particularly nuclear (some activists seem to think the risk of nuclear power is greater than the risk of global warming).
- Investigate the feasibility of the Bjorn Lomborg approach, which is to direct research funds to alternative energy projects so as to try to drive the cost of the technology down rather than forcing renewable energy onto economies in the belief that scale will somehow lower its intrinsic cost.
- Eliminate any requirement that retailers should give preference to renewable energy when sourcing supply.
If you think there are other principles that should be added to this list, please let me know.
And a good place to let me know will be at the Mark Latham function.
Cost is $45 for AIP members, $35 student members and $55 for non-members and includes all food and drink. To book, click here.
Bonus extra: not steak knives, but we'll tell you a bit more about our state election year project.
When: June 9 at 6:00 for 6:30 pm Where: Coorparoo RSL, 45 Holdsworth Street, Coorparoo Cost: $45 for AIP members, $35 for student members. $55 non-members. Includes all food and drink.. To book, click here.
Regards

Graham Young Executive Director Australian Institute for Progress
|
|