The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Funding Australia’s move to renewable energies > Comments

Funding Australia’s move to renewable energies : Comments

By Kevin Cox, published 28/11/2006

Investment in replacement technologies will not be driven by ideology but by the economic market.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All
“relying on traditional energy market forces to provide the necessary investment will not work, because the infrastructure for energy from renewable resources costs more than the infrastructure required for the burning of fossil fuel.”

That depends on how far forward the “market” looks, which in the case of energy generation should be 30 years +.

It also depends on the regulatory framework which enshrines the market in which the energy producer operates (which is the real role of government, regulating, not operating).

“Obtaining the required investment to shift to fuels that produce less greenhouse gases is a massive task.”

And I guess mankind has never been challenged by “massive tasks before”?
I know the ingenuity and innovation of man is what got us using fossil fuels in the first place.

Whilst I did not experience it first hand, I am assured the reason for the use of coal and development of coking coal as a fuel source was directly related to the unavailability of wood as a source (the British Navy wanted all the good stuff to build ships with).

In terms of “massive task” that was simply one which previous generations faced and overcame, and it was all done without a single tax on the populous.

We have all seen the abuse of power when some vested interest group gets their nose into the publics pocket. Government businesses and monopolies which could not stand on their own two feet become icons of labor endeavour, Telstra, CBA and Qantas to name but three. “Two airline agreements” and other monopoly and oligopoly structures administered not for the benefit of the voting and consuming electorate but for some special class of individuals (often as not card carrying unionist more interested in feathering their own nest viewing the consumer as a victim to be bled as much as possible.

Better “market economics”, commonsense and practical regulation shape the “environment” for all energies, than consumers being fleeced by additional taxes deployed to feather the nest of a favoured few.
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 30 November 2006 9:02:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gusi I have passed this by economists and the main objection is that they think it unnecessary. They say if we increase the price with a tax then the system will sort itself out. Unfortunately I believe we have to do better than that and we have to build a system that will guarantee that the money is allocated efficiently to greenhouse gas reduction measures. This proposal is designed to do that through a market in investment funds. This solves the problem of the efficient distribution of taxes by creating a market to distribute the tax.

You are correct in that it is a new currency and there are practical issues about to treat the currency but we can do it and are doing it all the time (think frequent flyer points)

I believe this hasn't happened before for three main reasons. The first is that it determines how the tax is distributed and that is not seen as a good idea by government officials. The second reason is companies in the energy business would like to keep the investment money themselves and this stops that as it gives it to the general population.

The final more important reason is that until recently it has been impractical. It has become practical because we now have electronic money and that is inexpensive. Through the Internet and phone system we are able to distribute the currency to the general population.

A similar idea was promoted for water at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4253. We are making progress on persuading a water authority to take up the idea. My hope is that we will be able to "prove" it with water then we can use it on the one that really matters - greenhouse gases.
Posted by Fickle Pickle, Friday, 1 December 2006 5:21:05 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col Rouge,

I suspect you think you are critiquing the article but I read it as very strong support for the arguments. Yes it is a massive task and yes it can be done and yes we do not yet another tax to make the market work. Because the proposal does NOT involve a tax it has a chance of working. If we make the cost of carbon a surcharge instead of a tax and if you let the purchaser retain control and ownership of the surcharge then we have a method of financing "Public Goods" and of alleviating "Public Bads". It takes little to imagine how the same process cannot be applied to most economic activities involving factors where there are Public requirements outside the immediate value of the goods or services. Food and obesity, public education, public health care, police protection, elimination of poverty, building social capital, all spring to mind.

Getting even a little more philosophical the approach should be music to the ears to Liberals and to Labor as it works by including most members of society and giving them a way to participate as well as providing choice and market mechanisms. It should appeal to the Greens as it gives a way for their environmental concerns to be resourced. Who loses?

To give you a "taste" of where this is heading let us invent another currency and let us call it votes. Let us now issue votes each year you live in a country and let people be able to spend their votes to help decide important issues like electing people to the board of the ABC.

The trick is to realise that electronic money is essentially a mechanism to make choices. Think now of lots of different sorts of money we can now use to make choices and think of money as being "smart" money that knows the areas it has to be spent.
Posted by Fickle Pickle, Friday, 1 December 2006 12:19:06 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The head of the Insurance Council of Australia has asked for the Carbon Tax regime in 2016 to be planned and published now so that businesses can make investment decisions to fit in with the business environment in 2016. At the moment businesses are aware of global warming and the expected increases in oil price as we pass peak oil but they have no framework to plan within.

I abhor waste but unlike Col_Rouge I don’t believe that incompetence is the exclusive preserve of government departments. I have seen some very inefficient subsidiaries of british companies operating in Australia without making a profit on the Australian operation ever. Something to do with writing off the loss on their Australian subsidiary against the parent company’s profit – and shipping in overpriced sealed beam headlights from Canada. When we are discussing the coal industry the big difference is that in Australia the coal mines are privately owned and in the UK they are nationalized.

Perhaps Col can tell us why its more efficient to have broken up the SEC and replaced it
- with Texas Utilities operating the coal powered station
- With AGL providing hydroelectricity
- With Citipower maintaining the copper wire
- And the choice of Origin, Victoria Elec, 3 other electricity retailers who each wrote their owning billing software and have a high paid CEO
Could Col pay particular attention to highlighting the economies of scale that occur in a market of 4 million customers and outlining whose responsibility it is to train electrical apprentices. Would Col recommend an electrical subbie to put on an apprentice?

Pierdsus I am promoting solar power as part of the solution because 1/3 electricity is lost in transmission, we can’t store much electricity, in SA and Vic when its 40 there are no clouds in the sky. Our peak electricity consumption occurs on hot afternoons when everyone returns from work and turns their airconditioning on. Sparticusss The SEC now allows households with solar power to connect to the grid and sell back their excess energy.
Posted by billie, Friday, 1 December 2006 12:53:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy