All these foibles are represented in Australia's aluminium industry which I believe is trying to hold carbon abatement schemes to ransom. Their clout is considerable given that aluminium embodies 11% of Australia's electricity production and they allegedly pay electricity rates some 20% of what households pay. The industry's claims need to be put under the microscope. Firstly that say they can easily relocate overseas; I doubt it since the rest of the world has coal and nuclear shortages. There is undeveloped hydro in Quebec apparently. The industry claims it needs cheap, constant power but how hard have they tried? If carbon abatement schemes lead to more wind power for example could aluminium adapt to somewhat variable grid output?

I suggest that aluminium gets no free carbon permits but pays for electricity at the basic post-ETS rate. This will vary eg Portland Vic is I believe brown coal dependent, Gladstone Qld uses black coal and in future coal seam gas while Bell Bay Tas is or was mostly hydro. Not sure about WA. Whatever the carbon impost if they have to be compensated give them a cash subsidy, export bonus or protective import tariff. Do it so it gets a line in the Budget papers, not swept under the carpet as an uncosted item.

Let's keep trade and economic growth considerations out of climate change decisions. We are on the wrong road and need to get off it.

Bob Williamson
Chair
Greenhouse Neutral Foundation
Author of ZERO Greenhouse Emissions - The Day the Lights Went Out - Our Future World www.strategicbookpublishing.com/ZEROGreenhouseEmissions.html

I would also like to make an additional comment on the previous comment by Taswegian. While smelters in this country (Australia)continue to consume 15% of Australia's total energy annually paying as little as 0.7 of a cent per Kwh and in the process of smelting each tonne of Aluminium consume 1,716 tonnes of Queenslands drought stricken water without concern, we allow the Murry Darling to die. A 15 gram aluminium can has an externalised water footprint of 25.75 litres of water and each of the Industry's aproximate 5,500 worker force have an externality of government subsidies for energy of $40,000 per person per annum. This industry --- we would be better off without. Thank you

Bob Williamson
Chair Greenhouse Neutral Foundation
Author of ZERO Greenhouse Emissions - The Day the Lights Went Out - Our Future World
www.strategicbookpublishing.com/ZEROGreenhouseEmissions.html

Bob Williamson, you say "Let's keep trade and economic growth considerations out of climate change decisions." Nope, can't do.

Adapting to, and mitigating GHG emissions, is inextricably linked to the (dated) Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES). While there are (IMO) some econometric modelling problems with the SRES, governments and major stakeholders around the globe have to consider the global economy we are living in, and projections of economic growth/decline.

You also say, "We are on the wrong road and need to get off it." I agree, but this is easier said than done (and why there will be a lot of hoo-hah leading up to Copenhagen next year).

In the future, I think the “price” of goods and services will better reflect the real cost of production/delivery, measured in “energy” units. Water is another issue.