There's power generators, there's power providers, and there's power consumers. When the requirement is for providers to supply a percentage from renewables, and rising as more come online. Won't that convince the coal burners it is time to change, or go broke.
The carbon price will even the costings between the coal burners and renewables. Solar is going in at a fantastic rate, every kwh created will further put the squeese on coal burning.
I am sure coal burners will be investing in renewables to cover their bottom. line.

579

"The carbon price will even the costings between the coal burners and renewables. Solar is going in at a fantastic rate, every kwh created will further put the squeese on coal burning. I am sure coal burners will be investing in renewables to cover their bottom. line "
People choosing to have solar panels installed have been encouraged by unrealistically high tariffs (since lowered by awakened State Govts) for electricity they sell back to the electricity networks/providers. This has forced the providers to increase retail electricity prices generally, so as to recover those high charges.

Given that solar power electricity is about 10 times more costly than coal-fired to produce, the proposed carbon tax will not provide much stimulus to electricity providers to invest in unreliable solar power.
There is no scientific, economic or international justification to introduce a carbon tax. The only certainty is that the proposed carbon tax will raise electricity prices by at least 10% and reduce Australia's comparative advantage, but have no impact on climate change. The Government is being disingenuous in suggesting otherwise

All the advocates of a carbon tax have been disproved over and over and over and over again, and each time, they just go silent, slink off, and return re-running the same superstitious beliefs.

Let’s go over this again shall we:
- cite a peer-reviewed article showing *temperature* measurements proving the existence of the alleged trophospheric hot spot on which the entire greenhouse/global warming belief system depends
- show how you have accounted for the upsides as well as the downsides of global warming, now and in the future – make sure you don’t rely on vested interests, appeal to absent authority, assuming what is in issue, or ad hominem arguments – that should narrow it down a bit for you
- justify your assumption that – in order to achieve your purpose of “balancing” all the oxidation and reduction reactions in the whole world for all the people now and in the future - a modest proposal - government has the necessary knowledge of all the relevant climatic, ecological and economic quantities, flows, costs and benefits
- prove how you know that the upsides of policy action will outweigh the downsides. Show your working. What discount, if any, have you applied for the value of a human life now and into futurity? Why?
- What if you are wrong? What if government doesn’t have the capacity and selflessness that you attribute to it? Show what account you have taken of the possibility that you will kill large numbers of people.

What gets me is that people in the world are already going hungry, while these anti-human religious zealots are intent on destroying as much capital as they can, by diverting it into less urgent and important uses as decided by all the people of the world whom the warmists regard as a form of cancer, or a plague of bacteria. Yet if we ask, how many people will be killed as a result of your policy action
a) they don’t know and have never considered the question, and
b) have the gall to feel offended by it!

CARBON CON

Note also that Australia will have to pay about $60 billion annually to unidentified foreign entities by 2050 merely for the right to burn its own coal and to keep the nation’s lights on, and a cumulative $650 billion up to that date.

The government's clean energy rhetoric is designed to deflect deeper scrutiny of the country's future international carbon (dioxide) permit purchase obligations, a key element of its carbon (dioxide) emissions “reduction” strategy from 2015, when the domestic carbon price will be set by the market.

How did we get to this point? When did "climate change" become the dodgy rationale for wealth transfer on such an unprecedented scale from the developed world (haves) to the developing world (have-nots)?

The answer: ever since the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change codified notions of “dangerous” climate change, “climate debt” and “precautionary” action, UN bureaucracies have been moving slowly – but inevitably - towards today’s highly politicised end-game.

When an accurate history of the UN’s long pas de deux with climate change alarmism is written, it will be clearer just how eagerly – and prematurely - the developing world (and other players) embraced it, years before the IPCC and its researchers ruled the science was “settled”. It will be a case study in the politicisation of science on a grand scale. It will reveal how (and why) the promise of treasure at the end of the atmospheric rainbow ensured too many so-called “facts” became “theory-laden” with anthropogenic global warming, carbonorexia nervosa and so on.

Alice (in Warmerland)

I found Peter Hume's rant quite interesting, almost enjoyable even. Made people like me sound like monsters. I felt positively dangerous after I read it.
Then he pleads for no ad hominum attacks... Go figure.
Like most thoughtful people who recognise the now incontrovertible science behind Global Warming forecasts, I just sit back and smile.
Because the argument - and history - is coming to us.
One by one, reputable scientists are coming out to demand urgent action on climate change; one by one countries are getting on board and acting. Every national academy of science - or equivalent - is firmly behind global warming science; NASA is... Need I go on?
Just give it another year or two, and this whole debate will have gone away.
That's the great thing about being patient. Common sense invariably prevails - eventually.
Anthony
www.observationpoint.com.a

Tell me Anthony, are you on the gravy train, or just admiring it from a far?

You obviously only read the stuff that reinforces your chosen position, which does make holding those like yours much easier.