I have to agree; silicon panels are really a form of bling-bling showing off. However there aren't so many ways of showing off conservation. Germany has innumerable solar roofs with a generous feed-in electricity tariff but now they want to build a score of new coal fired power stations.

I'm not so opposed to rainwater tanks with gravity reticulation as a way of keeping up water to plants in dry times. Then again mulch is cheaper but who notices? Ditto solar hot water in non-cloudy regions. It could be argued that students, staff and parents are made aware of the issues by conspicuous symbols such tanks and solar panels. On the other hand simple targets in reduced water and electricity consumption by schools cost little. Trouble is next the kids will ask politicians to fly and drive less.

Ariel understates the working life of solar panels (if they are looked after they can last several decades) and neglects the real benefits that can be had from low-tech rainwater tanks, but the gist is correct. PV panels are one of the most expensive ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today. Mass transit is cheaper and has important peak-petroleum-related economic benefits, but is not as cheap as improving electric efficiency.

Buying solar panels today has benefits quite apart from the direct emissions reduction.

First, there is propaganda (or "consciousness-raising") value, for politicians yes, but also for renewable energy itself.

Second, PV panels' generation leads and matches the afternoon air-con demand peak. Since this displaces gas-fired and hydroelectric peaking generation rather than coal-fired baseload, its carbon-emission-reduction effect is minimal, but the economic benefit is optimised because it reduces peak wear-and-tear on substation equipment and saves precious variable-load stored energy in the form of gas fuel and heads of water in dams. This makes solar panels a worthy investment in simple dollar terms -- "peak-shaving" can save utilities millions.

Third, buying solar panels in bulk today supports the PV industry and helps it to reduce costs, which are already falling rapidly. If this momentum is maintained, PV power can be expected to reach cost-parity with grid electricity within the decade. At that point, talk of nuclear power stations will be shown up for the farce it always was.

For these reasons I'm entirely in favour of the Solar Schools initiative, regardless of the limited direct environmental effect. Real emissions reductions are best bought by polluters in a carbon market, not politicians on the campaign trail.

As for the Kyoto successor-treaty: Ariel seems to have swallowed the Coalition's sook story. It is incumbent on rich nations such as Australia and the USA, who have benefited for decades from exploitation of abundant fossil fuels, to show leadership in technology and regulation for essential emissions reductions. The more such countries drag their feet, the *less* likely it is for big developing emitters to sign on to compulsory emissions caps of their own.

Solar pannels will work for every school no matter where it is. Rain water tanks will work no matter were the school is. Mass transport of kids may well have a bigger impact in some areas but not others. But mass transport of kids to school is petty much happening already to push it up higher would take alot of work. In the in Government should not and can force kids to use mass transport. However they have full control over were the poser to power schools comes from and what water they use.
Oh and as for Solar pannels having a lifetime of 8 years, that just the start of the writers bad facts and figures.

In bagging Labor's Solar Schools Policy, Ariel's simplistic cost-benefit analysis concludes that the Policy is "a ridiculously expensive way to combat climate change" while funding public transport would give "a bigger payoff in the volume of greenhouse gasses saved".

"I have no background in environmental science," confesses Ariel. Nor any in educational strategies, or logic, it seems.

First, the two schemes under Ariel's scrutiny are not mutually exclusive. Only a simple mind would think in either/or terms. Both - and others - are well worth doing.

Second, Ariel's critique misses a crtitical factor. A nation-wide schools program is not just about saving greenhouse gasses specifically in schools. The existence of solar energy in every Australian schools is potentially a major tool for teaching all Australian children over a prolonged period (10-12 years) about the value and importance of renewable energy. The multiplier effect as generations of children graduate is incalculable, but Ariel didn't have the wit to factor it into his one-dimensional calculator.

Third, Ariel does not factor in the universal, compulsory nature of schooling - where there is a captive audience for environmental learning as opposed to the optional nature of transport where milions of people will continue to exercise choice about how they get to work or to the shops.

All we need to do, says Ariel, is to "convince, or more correctly persuade, the public to drive less", but, as if conceding this is unachievable, he concedes that we also need to remove federal taxes on hybrid vehicles; lower (or eliminate altogether) car registration costs for such vehicles; exempt hybrids altogether from (state, but not privately-levied?) tolls.

Ariel is not a serious environmentalist. His article was just the vehicle (pun intended) to allow him to take a cheap shot at the ALP: the 'long march towards Kyoto II'; 'the unionists', 'Porkahontas', 'an affordable way to buy votes'.

If he were fair dinkum and even-handed, Ariel would tell us how the Liberals' environmental record has contributed over the past 11 years and how their plans stack up against what's needed now and in the future.

Frank,

A few of points, if I may.

1. You mention my comments on exemptions from state (road) tolls and point out that I did not include private toll roads. Mea culpa. Of course I meant to include private toll roads.

2. I do not agree that $500m spent to educate the young on renewable energy is value for money.

3. I do believe that by bribing people to take mass transit (by offering free or near-free travel) will generate enormous benefits for the environment. And I do feel such environmetal dividends are achievable, if there is a political will.

4. As to your comment on the absence of a critique on ‘the Liberals' environmental record’, well, if they come up with such pork, I will be first in line to call it for what it is.

Fair points Mr Ariel, though I'd have thought the cumulative benefits make it a viable proposition.

Aside from the issue of greenhouse gases, presumably there's also a reduction in power taken from the grid. This is in essence, extra electricity catering for growth. The same goes for the water tanks.
This is also a longterm issue, as far as I can tell, most of your calculations are based on a single year.
Aside from that, there is the fact that we need to start somewhere in fostering renewable energy - it comes as little surprise to me, that the first few salvos aren't particularly financially attractive.

More to the point, is there any reason why we can't do this and the public transport solution as well?