Never mind that 'renewable energy' in the form of firewood emits particulate matter when burned, causing real pollution -- not the fake 'pollution' of increased CO2. Never mind that the production of biofuels has driven up the price of food worldwide. Never mind that wind farms have soaked up vast sums of public money for a piddling return. Never mind that tidal power plants crash and sink, or that nuclear power stations melt down: these are trivial problems, my hearties, and can easily be solved by hurling vast sums of taxpayer's money blindly in the general direction of 'alternative energy sources'.

The big advantage of letting the private sector take care of these issues is that, unlike the Government, they eventually run out of money and sanity prevails. Sometimes they even make progress: something government-funded climate research has conspicuously failed to do. Let our investors do the investing, if they want to: our taxpayers are going to have enough to worry about in the near future.

I would think the process has to be taken further than finding clean technology, as almost all technology results in some type of waste, or uses some type of natural resources.

I would think governments should be investing in energy minimisation as well as investing in clean technology.

At present, each person in Australia uses 40 barrels of oil per day, as well as considerable amounts of coal, (and then we rely on the export of coal to pay for it all).

It verges on disgusting, and in Australia, energy conservation may be the best short term, medium term and long term solution to the problem of fossil fuels.

The problem with spending carbon tax revenue on alternative technology is that it may attempt to pick the winners in advance. Avoidance of carbon imposts should motivate new technology knowing that customers will buy the cheaper product. We may have already seen examples of fruitless government spending on clean coal and geothermal, neither of which seem ready for prime time despite hundreds of millions of dollars in support.

Apart from complete duds the spending may go on underperforming technology. Perhaps rather than subsidise wind and solar that don't help in calm weather and at night we should invest in energy storage. That could be pumped hydro, sodium batteries, compressed air and so on. That way the intermittent energy can be recovered at times of high demand.

Another troubling aspect of carbon tax is that it may make us more dependent on gas which is a finite resource. New power stations will be gas fired rather than coal. If they have quickly variable output they may be able to complement wind power picking up the slack during wind lulls. What happens when gas gets expensive as has occurred in Europe? If anything I'd spend carbon tax revenue on energy storage.

Alice, R&D is not something you go the street and pick up, it's a high risk area and not everyone wants to invest in it.

The people profiting in green/renewables in Australia are importing it and the government allows the rules to be bent, such that if only 1 or 2% of the R&D is here, it can be claimed as "local R&D", you get tax offsets etc.

Solar panels are not built here, nor are wind turbines, no R&D was done on those here.

R&D to make such systems more reliable or more efficient here, are trivial sideshows, and are done to soak up R&D grants by universities.

It is a complete falsehood to be chanting the mantra that Australia can be at the leading edge of a new sustainable energy industry, if only we invested here or there.

It doesn't work like that. You need creative people to do the forward thinking, to try hundreds of techniques and one or two may come of that. Our government only funds winners, with high profile front-men, like Tim Flannery with geothermal (a dismal failure with over $100M sunk)

If you want businesspeople to invest, stop taxing the crap out of them so they can invest something in high risk.

You somehow think if you create enough pain over there, you will create an environment of happy investing over here, using the stick method - but with our existing tax structures, it's less risky to invest in ways to get around the carbon tax and knee jerk ALP behavior.

The road you have to travel to get some of the Carbon Tax revenue for R&D, will not be easy for new entrants, it's not going to go to off the wall R&D. The usual universities who have grant writing to fine art would beat you to death if you tried to do something different.

Nothing is going to change, and we will not get new technology under our current system.

It's like an open sales pitch, "give us money and we'll do something", just more ALP spin.

Alice - what Amicus has begun I can take further.

The main clean technology manufacturer is already China and, with the Australia dollar the way it is, there is no possibility of a wind turbines and photovoltaic panel manufacturing industry becoming established here on any significant scale.

Australia already has considerable experience in subsidising marginal manufacturing operations and none of it is good. There is also considerable experience in forcing R&D in directions it does not nauturally go and, again, no-one wants to repeat any of it. Both policy initiatives are a straight waste of time and money.

If and when a carbon tax is instituted, the equipment use to meet its requirements will be mostly imported, and that is not going to change. Deal with it.

Let's examine the recent Gillard government postulations on its carbon dioxide tax.
1. People won't pay, big polluters will pay. Who are they kidding?
2. The entire amount collected will be spent in compensating "millions of households". Ditto.
3. Well, 50 per cent of the amount collected will be spent on compensating households and millions of them will be better off. Ditto ditto.

Each of these, individually and collectively, illustrate the incompetence of the government. They are clueless and befuddled.

But when you boil down the policy, it's a combination of Labor's traditional magic pudding tax, where there's always and forever more to spend, and a stock standard pyramid scheme, which would be illegal if anyone else tried it, allowing the government to cream off profits while leaving a lot of other people with no shirts.

“Solar panels are not built here, nor are wind turbines, no R&D was done on those here”

“-- no R&D was done on those here”?? You are blowing in the wind with that statement, Amicus.

The author does not understand that putting a price of $20-$30/tonne on carbon is initially intended to increase the price coal to the point where it becomes economically attractive for the private sector to use cleaner (lower carbon emission) technology to generate electricity, such as gas and coal/solar.

That price will generate revenue which government has declared it will use in part to assist the development and use of new technology which will generate electricity even more cleanly than gas and hybrid arrangements such as coal/solar. Part of the revenue (>50%) will be used to compensate households for the inflationary effects of higher priced electricity and to compensate trade-exposed businesses.

Over time, the price of carbon will be increased. The effect of that increase will be to reduce carbon emissions until it is clear that reduction targets will be met and to make it increasingly attractive to use emission free, renewable sources to generate electricity and meet our other energy needs.

Present estimates are that when the price of carbon reaches $60/tonne electricity generated by renewable sources (wind, hydro, geothermal) will be cheaper than electricity produced from carbon emitting fossil fuels - which will then cease to be used.

Between 2012 (introduction of Carbon Price) and the time when that price reaches $60/tonne (in ?? years), the intention is to continue allocating part of the revenue generated to the development and use of new technology to needed to improve the production and supply of our energy needs and manage a smooth transition from fossil fuel to renewables.

Shadow Minister,

(I posted this thread on Tristan Ewins piece today, but am hoping you will also look in on this piece on this tax. Hoping.)

You seem to have a real handle on both the political debate and the economics relating to this proposed Carbon Tax. Can you do me, and methinks a great many others, a great favour by giving us your thoughts on the proposed tax (being, on what we have been allowed to know of the proposition so far, and perhaps on what else it may entail), and on the alternatives - such as government grants/investment in sustainable energy development.

I don't like Garnaut's argument, and don't believe he has really looked at alternatives - not since he was originally commissioned to produce a report to support Rudd's CPRS. Also, I don't think he's nearly as smart as he thinks he is.

On TV recently I saw a piece showing Ms Gillard visiting an Oz solar plant, supposedly one of the biggest (factual or proposed) in the world, and heard Gillard say this was an example of private industry pressing forward with investment in alternatives BECAUSE OF the government's introduced Green Energy target. However, I also heard mention of the project being funded by a government grant. What was NOT mentioned was any ratio of private vs government investment in this project. I think Ms G was doing her usual thing and tailoring her statements to political interest, rather than the naked TRUTH!

Given the growing opposition to this tax, by industry, the workers and the unions - over potential job losses, industry moving offshore, and far greater cost of living increases than mooted (as well as the inbuilt complexity and uncertainty of the whole blessed thing) - Could you PLEASE give us your thoughts, on the economics and on alternatives.

Thanks also for the link to The Australian. You've already made my day. Holding my breath.

colinsett .. blowing in the wind .. really?

So where's the industry colinsett?

Where are we manufacturing solar or wind turbines in Australia?

Apart from the minuscule R&D done, as I mentioned in my post .. what R&D has been done here?

Where is it going, is it growing?

I work in the R&D field colinsett, in the high tech area, and we work offshore mostly as it's too expensive and tax wise prohibitive and insanely complicated and over bureaucratic, other countries actually help you without treating you as a cheat or thief from the moment you want to access government R&D assistance.

The only people who get anything out of the government R&D programs are those big enough to afford all the lawyers and accountants to structure your investments and record keeping .. it is so onerous, people give up and go away.

Successive governments do nothing to improve it .. if CSIRO came up tomorrow with a huge worldbeater technology, it would be years and years before anything happened to it as it would be so overladen with royalty arguments, caveats and overheads.

We just don't do it at all well .. and look around you, see how much Australian innovation there is ..lots of R&D at CSIRO, DSTO universities all going no where, it is almost never taken to market within a reasonable time.

The Americans rule this area because their government gets out of the way, leaves money with the people who make it to invest, instead of a bunch of political hacks trying to make high tech investment decisions, exactly the wrong people to do it.

leave the money with the people who know what to do with it, get the bureaucracy out of the way and we might stand a chance .. what does the ALP/eco weenies want? More government control more taxes!

We're doing the exact opposite of what we need for a free innovative marketplace

Shadow Minister,

(This thread originally posted today on the tail of Tristan Ewins piece.)

A Post Script: I'm a bit tired of the political debate which is clouding discussion on the REAL ISSUE - which is the carbon tax. I'm also tired of the skeptics and naysayers - BECAUSE I think what really matters is the efficacy and sincerity of this proposed tax. It is TIME we focused on what this tax may, or may not do, to OZ, to all of us. It is time we focused on the FACTS relating to the tax itself, and on whether it is really a responsible and effective mechanism.

I can't help feeling Ms G is only pushing this tax as a tax-grab on the one hand (because of as yet undeclared huge budget black holes, perhaps), and on the other hand as a last ditch attempt to lever Labor towards a slim hope of remaining in power after the next election. Neither of these potential motivations can justify this tax imposition (as an alternative to coming clean with the Oz public), nor do I believe that this tax has anything whatsoever to do with addressing climate change, and nor do I really believe that it is the most effective way for Oz to build a sustainable energy future.

Sorry for getting a bit ahead of myself. I am really interested in YOUR VIEWS on this matter, and should not be demonstrating a closed mind by railing on. My apologies.

Apologies also to Tristan for not being the least bit interested in Liberal-Socialism or Easter Bunnies. My head is sore enough already.

Also sorry to the climate skeptics who keep saying "convince me, convince me; give me the proof!" They unfortunately miss the point altogether, being that we are addressing a new tax scheme, not global warming - whether it exists or not is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. (As really are the underlying political motivations.)

There's nothing to say about this debate but this:
The Australian government does not actually want us to stop using coal, oil and grid electricity because there is simply too much money to be made;
There are cheap renewable options already in existence and the government is either completely pretending they don't exist (electric cars), or trying VERY hard to discourage consumers to use (killing subsidies and rebates to Solar- because, it, um, is reducing power consumption too much).

Next Federal election anyone who picks on these points and promises to deliver will probably get a high spot on my election paper; anyone that imposes a 'carbon tax'- especially those who refuse to actually HELP bring in the alternatives we are allegedly "supposed to be converting to (but not really)" won't even get a mark; they don't deserve my vote at all.

So why are we going through all this agony?

Because the Australian public has been convinced that CO2 is VERY BAD, and is the cause of what, we are assured, will become Catastrophic Global Warming. Actually, (and I have devoted several hours per day for the past 10 years or so studying the underlying science) despite what the governments paid advisers (Will Steffen, David Karoly, Tim Flannery et al) are telling you, it is definitely NOT proven that rising CO2 levels are causing significant warming.

To the extent that voters are seeing what they think is CO2 caused climate change, it is far more likely that they are observing the effects of land-use affecting local and regional climate. Or natural changes in climate.

The science is most certainly NOT settled, and those who are arguing that it is will be held to account in due course.

herbert, some people use this as a proxy for a class war with "rich people, right wingers, red necks" all of whom are demonised as rampant polluters.

Whether they are or not is irrelevant to the cause .. the cause is, to have a cause. it's so nice to be able to clump together and have in common, some sort of ritual dislike for another "group" supported by "science"

So you have a bunch of people who all find they are brothers and sisters because they all dislike people who have more than they do, they can then demand taxes, which will not affect them, only the 'polluters".

Which means they can go on with their lifestyles, not change anything at all, because they will not pay as they are not polluters, yes we all do little bits of polluting, but the point is it's THEM over there! (We'll be compensated, so nyah nyah)

It's those who love the environment against those who hate it, well they must hate it, why else would they consume the way they do? yes we consume too, but they do it more and We're the good guys, we demand!

Then the class war gets right out of control when you have organizations banding together to demand more taxation!

Again, because for some reason, they think they will not be paying it .. the trickle down effect will not trouble them at all (Greg Combet said so).

I have so much trouble trying to understand what is driving the demanders, yes polluting less is good, but do they really expect another tax is going to do anything, except embolden the government to add yet more taxes .. if it sells once, it must sell again.

We the demanders, they cry, are entitled!

We demand they are taxed, we demand we demand we demand!

Held to account, no they'll be able to say it was the scientists who led them astray .. nothing to do with them at all.

Some good posts, but also confusion about what this tax will actually achieve, and how it will work. (Except vanna, who has it figured - by all of us living in tents, and going back to horse and cart, candles and peddle radios.)

Solar subsidies: It appears an enormous cost blow-out caused a government re-think, and for Keneally to slash the grid input in NSW to 20 cents/Kwh (to dissuade further uptake.) The schemes were far too successful! However, perhaps the absence of reduced consumption was the telling factor - as any argument that these schemes were reducing greenhouse could not be substantiated, and therefore the cost (to taxpayers' funds) could not be justified. (I suspect solar households just used more, because it wasn't costing.) Solar has a long way to go to make it truly cost-effective. (Another post was also on and off the mark, in that a magic solar tech breakthrough was made in Oz, but of course it went overseas for development. China?)

Have to take the author to task, or rather the quote from Leigh Ewbank: "This infrastructure, ......., is the platform needed to deliver Gillard's vision of "a sweeping technological revolution ..." Since when did Ms Gillard have any sort of "vision" about anything?

Agnostic of Mittagong,

What a splendid idealistic view of how this carbon tax will play out. Sorry to burst a lot of bubbles, but the "Ms G/Combet/Swann" trio is proposing to allow energy generators to pass the full increased cost to consumers - minstrels and magnates alike. So where's the incentive for the generators to go green? Answer - we have to wait for the ETS, without which all fails. The trick is that, when revealed, the ETS will appear the "savior" of/from this carbon tax. Poof!

Consumption will reduce? (Even though households are compensated?) Poof!

Alternates will rise, like phoenix from the ashes? Poof!

I have to rebut an unkind comment about Tony Abbott's stance. He is rightly questioning, and proposing direct action. In contrast, the "fabulous trio" is proposing smoke and mirrors.

Prediction: There will be no Carbon Tax. And Gillard will blame Tony Abbott!

Shadow Minister,

(This post also posted on the tail of Tristan Ewins piece.)

A Post Script: I'm a bit tired of the political debate which is clouding discussion on the REAL ISSUE - which is the carbon tax. I'm also tired of the skeptics and naysayers - BECAUSE I think what really matters is the efficacy and sincerity of this proposed tax. It is TIME we focused on what this tax may, or may not do, to OZ, to all of us. It is time we focused on the FACTS relating to the tax itself, and on whether it is really a responsible and effective mechanism.

I can't help feeling Ms G is only pushing this tax as a tax-grab on the one hand (because of as yet undeclared huge budget black holes, perhaps), and on the other hand as a last ditch attempt to lever Labor towards a slim hope of remaining in power after the next election. Neither of these potential motivations can justify this tax imposition (as an alternative to coming clean with the Oz public), nor do I believe that this tax has anything whatsoever to do with addressing climate change, and nor do I really believe that it is the most effective way for Oz to build a sustainable energy future.

Sorry for getting a bit ahead of myself. I am really interested in YOUR VIEWS on this matter, and should not be demonstrating a closed mind by railing on. My apologies.

Apologies also to Tristan for not being the least bit interested in Liberal-Socialism or Easter Bunnies. My head is sore enough already.

Also sorry to the climate skeptics who keep saying "convince me, convince me; give me the proof!" They unfortunately miss the point altogether, being that we are addressing a new tax scheme, not global warming - whether it exists or not is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. (As really are the underlying political motivations.)

Gillard's visit to the solar boosted coal station underscores the task ahead. The new gadgetry is supposed to provide 44,000 megawatt hours of clean energy a year but I think you'll find coal provides between five and six million megawatt hours from that operation. Perhaps Ms Gillard should have stayed home and offered to save the fuel from the VIP jet.

As to those who are sharpening their knives for a day of reckoning I'd be inclined to get body armour instead. Climatologist James Hansen who has been making mostly correct predictions for decades says 2012-2014 will be extra hot. Better have your excuses ready.

Saltpetre
If global warming is occurring, it is basically impossible to prove or disprove that it is because of CO2, (as there are too many variables), but it is quite straightforward to prove that energy efficiency is occurring, and there are many ways to improve energy efficiency.

If R&D is only directed towards creating more energy, and money is not also spent on energy efficiency, then the R&D is not particularly useful.

Unfortunately or fortunately, many forms of energy efficiency will require changes to our current lifestyle, but one does have to wonder at times if our current lifestyle is worth maintaining anyway.

"Climatologist James Hansen who has been making mostly correct predictions for decades..."

This must be some OTHER climatologist called James Hansen, surely: you can't be thinking of this one:

http://tinyurl.com/64tgf6w

or this one:

http://tinyurl.com/3tb5zlr

Australia's proposed carbon tax won't make any difference to our climate. It is therefore pointless and an outrageous deception. More so because it is probable that there will never be effective global action to cut emissions. Until there is a cost effective alternative energy source readily available, we're just going to keep on burning coal and gas till either they run out or the human population is decimated. Taxing carbon only makes it more attractive to burn illegally, and less attractive to develop more efficient and competitive zero GHG emission power sources.

Alice, welcome to OLO.

In distilling down your article it’s clear you wish to promote a clearer renewables policy as means of “selling” the public on a carbon dioxide tax. The problem you have, as do so most renewable advocates, is that after many years of actual experience worldwide, it is clear that renewables have failed us on a number of fronts. Market/technological readiness, commercial viability, cost, efficiency, carbon dioxide mitigation, financial risk and the unresolved issue of mandatory matching base load generation.

Most recently, the UK based John Muir Trust Produced (Analysis of UK Wind Power Generation, November 2008 to December 2010). This was based on actual input to the grid and tracked by the generators themselves at 5 min. intervals.

The following is a brief extract:
“During the study period, wind generation from the UK wind turbine fleet (with an average capacity over the period of the survey in excess of 1600 MW) was:
Below 20% of capacity more than half the time
Below 10% of capacity over one third of the time
Below 2.5% capacity for the equivalent of one day in twelve
Below 1.25% capacity for the equivalent of just under one day a month
The discovery that for one third of the time wind output was less than 10% of capacity, and often significantly less than 10%, was an unexpected result of the analysis.

We are also fully aware that the Danish produce 13% of their electricity from wind. Over four fifths of this is exported to adjacent countries, sometimes at zero income because it is produced when not needed. The most recent estimate of costs to the Danish public is above DKK 1.5Bn. (approx. A$220m). (Ref. “The Wind Farm Scam” by Dr. John Etherington).

In Dec. 2010, Transfield CEO announced the suspension of two wind farms in Australia due to lack of investment funds.
This not a good basis for justifying a CO2 tax so it has very little going for it. Reality and history have overtaken you, sorry.

Amicus, colinsett, just picked up on your R&D debate.

For what it’s worth the UK, regardless of its large fleet of wind turbines, does not do R&D, it does not manufacture them, it does not install them, it does not maintain them and even operation is done by radio telemetry from guess where? Yes, Denmark.

The only UK related Green Jobs we can identify are one “grounds man”, not even sure what he does?

As far as R&D for solar or wind power is concerned, Spain, Germany and Denmark had that all wrapped up 10 years ago, with EU “free money” of course. Their only threat today comes from China who will do the lot cheaper and faster. Laughably, they will do it by burning our coal.

Isn’t it time we stopped this ideological stupidity?

spindoc,

Aren't you missing the point a bit? If there had been no space race would computing and IT have reached their current point? If someone had not invented the wheel would we now have fancy cars?

We know that there are some efficient sustainable alternatives now, though mostly not all that cost competitive - as yet. Are you so defeatist that you think that it's end-game, no chance of further advancement? Oil will one day not too far hence become so expensive not even you may be able to drive an internal-combustion-engine driven automobile - unless we have, say, biofuel? But then, there all going to be electric, are they? Don't think my dozer's going to go all that well on electons, but I could be wrong.

If there wasn't international and local (Oz) concern about CO2 emissions and greenhouse, and the future for Icelandic glaciers, polar bears, phyto- and zooplankton, or the future of mankind - well, we wouldn't be having this debate.

So many nay-sayers crying "show me the proof", demanding an empirical, ultra-scientific irrefutable proof! Please, get the head out of the sand.

Science will advance, new technologies will emerge, more efficient machines will be developed, more alternatives will be invented. Nothing surer. But, it won't happen if it's not needed, if it's not promoted and funded, if the public and the politicians don't listen to and heed learned advice.

The world is not about to stand still, and the mining boom is not going to last forever. If Oz doesn't develop new industries and new jobs we will become the new Third World. So, let's move on and get on the latest productivity boom - which is the development of alternative energy technologies. If we don't actually need it, so what? At least we'll still have a robust economy.

Saltpetre, I offered factual reports from independent sources. You lost me when you got to "polar bears".

I spent 45 years in the computer industry, designing P-N-P subdrtrates for micro chips. I don't ever remember the space race driving technology. You're an ill informed dreamer Saltpetre.

saltpetrw "Aren't you missing the point a bit? "

the subtitle of the article is what people are referring to .. please read ..

"The longer Australia clings to fossil fuels the faster the window of opportunity to become a leading provider of renewable technologies shrinks."

No one is saying no R&D is done anywhere in the world, what is being said is the story we're being sold, that if we, Australians, don't give up fossil fuels and pay carbon taxes, then we'll miss out on being a world leader in renewable development.

The message is we need to embrace the renewable technology race. As if this alone will save us from "peak oil", the current scare being touted

this completely ignores the fact we're abysmal at R&D underwriting in Australia and any kind of follow on development - when we do invent things that don't get off the ground until they go overseas.

renewables will be no different..

there is no reason to believe any of the ALP spin that anything has changed.

So just by chanting the government line that all the green jobs from all the wonderful technologies we will develop are just around the corner, just pay more tax, doesn't make it so.

We need to change much more than just our attitude, we need to change the way R&D is done.

amicus has it right, the government and previous governments all think they can develop R&D by picking what appear attractive, well presented winners - and they keep failing.

Leave the money with the people who know how to invest and we'll get results, but we need the government to develop a climate for safe and successful investment in R&D.

not just the university, and government funded type of R&D, all that comes of that is more red tape and better grant writing, no actual results.

tell me where I'm wrong?

"UltraBattery technology could overcome the issue of intermittent power generation associated with wind and solar, which remains a fundamental road block for the widespread uptake of renewable energy resources such as these."

And now for the sad part

"In 2007 CSIRO signed an UltraBattery commercialisation and distribution agreement with Japan's Furukawa Battery Company and United States manufacturer, East Penn.

The exclusive sub-license agreement will see the UltraBattery distributed by East Penn to the automotive and motive power sector throughout North America, Mexico and Canada while Furukawa Battery Company will release the technology in Japan and Thailand."

http://www.csiro.au/science/Ultra-Battery.html

So some apparently good Australian research sold off to foregin interests with few gains for Australia.

How much more taxpayer funded R&D research will become similar.

It seems one of Julia's bosses, Paul Howes, stance on carbon pricing has more in common with Alice's 'backward Tony Abbott's Coalition'.

How long is it going to be before you are spruiking another labor leader's solutions to cure all?

It'd be safe to hold your breathe!

All this chattering about carbon prices will then be discarded in favour of what most of us want ... no carbon tax.

I totally agree. In my opinion it's too late though people and due to the lack of interest you buggers can all suffer.

I have obvioulsy failed to prevent the religion of global warming taking over the Government in such an insideous way. All my protestations have met with deaf ears from all factions of the Australian Political parties. They have forgotten their number 1 tenet and duty of care.. To ensure the well being of Australian Citizens.

Instead of giving the IPCC 3 Billion dollars why don't we spend it on an Energy resource which provides cheap efficient power or give it to the CSIRO to research alternative power choices instead of spending it on futile highly amibiguous Global warming research.

Whats the point if it's going to happen we might as well prepare ourselves for it rather than fight it.

I believe the current administration has a lot to answer for, they aren't doing a very good job. I have a wild idea though, let's not vote for any of them.

Take care everyone :)

rpg,

Sorry it's taken me a while to get back.

I think you've got it mostly right. I never said I was in favour of a carbon tax though, quite the contrary.

A few questions - where would the necessary R&D be best placed? Do you think some form of carbon cap/target ought be applied, as an incentive for major energy producers to invest in "cleaner" technologies? Do you see the R&D grant funds coming from current internal revenue, some new tax, or possibly from a portion of relevant mining royalties - even if these may need to be increased?

I don't really need the answers of course, but there is always hope that someone in a position to make a difference may actually be tuned in. For what it's worth I favour direct investment, within reason - since whatever Oz may do is likely to be of little impact on the global scene, though you never know where the next major breakthrough may come from.

spindoc,

If you don't care about polar bears, then I guess you probably don't care much about anything. Pity.