Senate Green, but not Green? The environmental policy and progress thread

So, let's talk through some of the practical challenges and some of the laudable breakthroughs in the fields of environmental policy and science whilst patiently (at first) entertaining climate change sceptics with their adorable fallacies.

So, recently it became known via the International Energy Association (IEA) - arguably the most prominent energy forecaster - that based on their research carbon emissions have been flat over the past two years. This will undoubtedly fan debate over whether peak emissions have been achieved; but one of the key points made in an analysis piece I read was that IAE relies on economic data provided by states. It's widely understood that China fudges some of its data, and accordingly the findings could be based on an assumption (unfounded) that China's move to cleaner burning, less fossil fuel intensive industry has occurred faster than expected. The reality may not be so rosy.

The IEA did state that its research did highlight three broad trends which underpin the data: 1) the increased usage of alternate means of generating power, most notably through wind turbines; 2) a switch to natural gas plants in North America, away from coal fired, and 3) a State lead effort in China to reduce emissions.

The latter is linked to an apparent drop of 1.5% in emissions by China in a single year, a remarkable figure which, if untrue, would be disappointing. China, though, does not think its emissions will be substantially and meaningfully lowered until 2030 - which in my mind means the figures may be more reliable than we give them credit for. And encouragingly, the IEA notes that the growth in renewable tech sectors and renewable energy generation has been decoupled from economic growth; that is, innovation and competition are reducing the opex demands on any clean tech firm. They can sell at a more competitive price, and a price at which the consumer is more willing to pay. This can only continue.

So is this significant, these two years of flat emissions? Or too short to call a trend? With the US still economically weakened and India growing rapidly, can we see an upswing in emissions in the near term?

And just how is this all a left wing conspiracy aimed to undermine religious expression?

 

What's the increase in nuclear worldwide in that period, in addition to renewables / alternates?

I'm still not convinced, until we have fusion, that large, urban areas can sustain energy production without nuclear or coal, with limited natural gas plants.

 

I am fairly disillusioned at this point that we can stop the momentum of climate change. Fact of the matter is even if we stopped all emissions of carbon dioxide tomorrow it would only have a marginal effect in the long run. Argri-Buisness is the primary source of global warming and that isn't going to slow down, especially with the growth of the Chinese and Indian middle classes.

I agree that we should end carbon emissions and move towards a completely renewable energy system... but it's not going to stop climate change.

 

I don't think at this point we're talking about stopping it; we're trying to mitigate our impact on it.

But the issue for me is that people have pegged progress to the ability of the state to exercise influence and pull policy levers to limit emissions.

This was always, in my view at least, a fairly limited and limiting perspective. The market is a much better actor when it comes to solving problems because it's basically where innovators are incentivised to compete and competition is good for pushing prices down. A very simplified, high level view but nonetheless accurate.

So it's actually reasonably exciting that one of the major drivers for growth has been turbines, because I know a lot of these are privately owned (my old employer, the Australian bank that the papers love to hate because tall poppies, invested in a number of them all throughout Asia). If we can crack the code on solar - less reflective panels and better batteries - things will really get interesting.

 

But the point is that we aren't going to mitigate our impact in the long run if we just focus on emissions form the energy sector, etc. It will momentarily plateau and then being to rise again.

I realise this is an activist site, but it has some good cited information:

http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts/

Do you approve of an ETS as a means of reducing emissions? I certainly don't think our 'direct action' policy is going to even dint our emissions targets, and seems to almost be a cop out by the skeptics in the Coalition.

With most of our country an uninhabitable desert, we should really be laying tracks of solar farms when we get price effective solar technology.

 

Believe batteries may have been solved, or at least a radical new solution, very recently.

 

Agreed on the last part. And that's why the decision, now unwound, to wind up funding for the pejoratively named "Bob Brown Bank" (Clean Energy Finance Corp.) was critically short sighted.

But as for the ETS: it does enable a mechanism for enabling richer countries to take a less disruptive approach to global emissions standards and reduction. I recall the Rt Hon Malcolm Bligh Turnbull saying, as opposition leader, that people want carbon reduction but someone has to pay for it.

He was right then, and is right now; but let's get him elected and Bill Shorten out of the picture so he has a mandate to govern.

 

Well I will probably vote for Turnbull since he is doing a good job, has kept the loons in a box, and because Bill Shorten is definitely not Prime Minister material (I don't even think he is Opposition Leader material). Oh and I agree with him on most issues. But I don't think he'll get a mandate for an ETS...