I agree that Australians have a naive belief in the ability of subsidised wind and solar to make inroads into emissions. It's both wishful thinking and disrespects the magnitude of the problem. Consistent with that our CO2 reduction targets are absurdly inadequate relative to our culpability. The cuts should be 25-40% not 5%.

I suspect carbon tax will need some elaborate spin doctoring to paint a rosy picture. No doubt we'll see happy families enjoying picnics in the shadows of new wind and solar facilities. The truth will be the CO2 savings aren't that great but the cost is high. The coal stations will still be there out of the picture. Unlike the US (for now at least) we can't assume a stable gas price will underwrite emissions reductions. Note the US has achieved significant emissions reductions via cheap gas and no 'additional' carbon price.

Some will point out that power demand is flatlining. That's not yet a major reduction which as the author points out needs to be of the magnitude normally associated with recessions. Sending steel and aluminium industries to other countries is just shifting the emissions problem elsewhere.

In a possible triumph for OLO we may get a government that sees no need to realistically confront CO2. I wonder if that is any worse than the present tokenism.

It's an interesting phenomena that power consumption is falling. One would expect with a rising pop that it would rise - but no. The rise of renewables is to be welcomed.

I'm always surprised when people who are against logging, coal power, etc, also bag solar and wind power. I'm still waiting for sensible responses from the greenie left.

A great article Tom. Well worth redistributing.

And Cheryl is right - it would be surprising to see power use flatlining while population is increasing - especially since both CO2 emissions and population in Australia increased by 30% from 1990 to 2006. Despite the government's rosy economic statements we can see real stress in the retail sector and everyone feels under stress from electricity price rises. So this is where population growth really starts to drive increases in poverty - when total energy use is flat but the number of consumers continues to increase. Not a happy story!

"I'm still waiting for sensible responses from the greenie left."

Best oxymoron of the year; sensible comments/greenie left.

Coal= Ultra SuperCritical; Thorium and 4th Generation, IFRs:

http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/12/13/integral-fast-reactor-ifr-nuclear-power-q-and-a/

And NOT Biofuels.

Wind and solar do not work; anyone who says they do is either a liar or stupid or making money from them; or all three.

Tom Bielger is getting there in the logic department, but still builds his edifice on the shifting sands of presuming carbon dioxide is bad. The economist, who wrote in The Age recently: "Give us a price incentive, and we find ways to reduce emissions with little damage to profits or our standards of living" is of the same unrealistic breed as the one on the desert island faced with the problem of opening a can of food 'Assume we have a tin opener'.
Where is the magic provider of the can opener or the 'price incentive'? Firstly, can he define emissions? Secondly can he distinguish between good emissions and bad emissions?
Carbon dioxide is demonstrably a good emission (it feeds plants and plants feed us) and there is no evidence that this trace gas controls the climate.
Bad emissions are particulate matter and noxious gases, plastic bags in the sea, rubbish by the roadside, uncontrolled bushfires fed by fuel loads resulting from poor forest management.
This amazing planet has vast resources of fossil and other carbon-based fuels. To restrict the argument to fossil fuels reinforces the perception that there were only so many dead dinosaurs and we will therefore eventually run out of this energy source. A rising understanding of what is happening beneath our feet points to the realisation that incredibly vast amounts of methane are being continually generated (ref the work of the late Thomas Gold), and that before a small fraction of our available carbon fuels are consumed, mankind will have found safe ways to utilise new forms of nuclear energy.
Coal, oil and gas have given us breathing space to develop the prosperity we need to defend ourselves from natural catastrophe.

Regards
John McRobert

Excellent analysis. It also highlights the real problem with CO2 that governments around the world refuse to face - serious cuts in fossil fuel usage necessarily imply a shift to a low energy economy. The impact of such a shift will in part be determined by the size of the population.