Roses1
We've already established that you're lying and cannot provide any rational basis for climate policy:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16792&page=0
so you need either to learn to be quiet when you have no rational argument, or demonstrate that climate policy would have net benefits which you haven't done. Mere name-calling and hyberbole about the world's going to send soon don't cut it.

"By the way there's nothing stopping the likes of AGL and Origin from changing their generation / retail businesses to fit the flexible, clean energy supply that consumers want."

You're lying. The fact that doing so will cause losses is what's stopping them, and you've already admitted that, so you're contradicting yourself.

If it's true that consumers want so-called flexible clean energy then why don't you provide it with your own capital, and that of everyone who agrees with you? If you're right, you'll make lots of profit. The reason you're not doing it is because you know you'll make losses, otherwise you'd do it.

Why don't you, and everyone else who agrees with you, fund it yourself? Why do you demand using force and threats? Why shouldn't energy decisions be based on voluntary agreement? Why the fascism?

‘morning Peter,

Both your links offer an excellent analysis of the CO2 abatement economics however, they are already proven to be a disaster as evidenced by the self inflicted economic and industrial pain in the EU. We already know Green has not worked.

I would be more interested in you exploring the “real” beneficiaries of these CO2 mitigation based economics?

In the EU alone some 800 million Euros( $US 1 Trillion) has been sucked out of their economy since 2008 alone, so who are the real beneficiaries of this?

“Investigations by the Mail on Sunday reveal the Green Blob is not just an abstract concept. We have found that innocuous-sounding bodies such as the Dutch National Postcode Lottery, the American William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the Swiss Oak Foundation are channeling tens of millions of pounds each year to climate change lobbyists in Britain, including Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. According to leading energy analyst Peter Atherton of Liberum Capital, current UK energy policies shaped by the Green Blob will cost between £360 billion and £400 billion to implement by 2030. He said this will see bills rise by at least a third in real terms – on top of the increases already seen over the past ten years”.

“Meanwhile, it is clear that the sheer scale of this lavishly funded lobbying effort dwarfs that of its opponents”.
--David Rose, Mail on Sunday, 26 October 2014

Yakity yak, blah, blah, blah, blah.
I think the planet is in more danger from all the hot air emanating from yet another round of very expensive, if completely emasculated and as ever, fruitless talks!
Were were to grasp the nettle, we would simply crack on rolling out the cheaper than coal publicly owned and operated alternatives, on the ground the would help our economy and economic prospects/export industries far more than anything else in prospect!
Forget the fact they are also carbon neutral or carbon free: I mean, that's hardly a logical reason to reject cheaper than coal alternatives! Or is it?
We might have more success turning water into wine, than trying to get countries like Russia to agree with anything, let alone the rejection of fossil fuel, and the extreme control that guarantees them; even as our world is very slowly being brought to the boil.
I mean, we warm and comfortable frogs won't react until it's to late to do anything about it; but particularly, if it's left to eternally disagreeing politicians; some who for all we know, may have a vested interest in the status quo, or fossil fuel industries?
Honestly folks, what other possible reason or reasons could there be for the abysmal lack of economy boosting success in this area!
Seriously, are we going to allow ourselves to be held back by essentially, tax avoiding price gouging foreigners!?
Can't died in a cornfield over a century ago.
But won't is still alive and well, and kicking the planet destroying carbon can down the road, or the incredibly long corridors of power!
Rhrosty.

Mark Lawson here
Spindoc - actually a version of the article first appeared in the Australian Financial Review. The Australian does run stuff like that every now and then, but you're right in that such material seldom appears.

Roses1 - your response showcases all that is wrong with the RET debate. If you seriously think the RET saves money, then why not chuck away all the legislative requirements and let the market work? The problem is that it doesn't save money. It can have a temporary effect on wholesale spot prices, but that's merely by pushing the costs elsewhere the system. There is even a question about how much carbon it will save. In any case, there is no chance of renewables taking over the energy system for decades yet, if ever, and with no international agreement in place its all just a waste of time and money.. time to adjust to reality.

Perhaps we need to re-frame the problem in a form that doesn't rely on reducing CO2 to reduce global warming. It's time for a bit of lateral thinking.

We know that the biggest producers of CO2 are burning coal and, to a lesser extent, burning gas and oil. Burning coal produces other emissions that are dangerous to human health. This reason alone should be sufficient to move away from using coal, at least for generating electricity. Electrification of light transport will reduce emissions from burning oil. These actions alone will deal with a significant part of the CO2 problem without discussing global warming.

In a way this is the approach of the Chinese. Their primary interest is protecting their people from polluted air by burning less coal and using hydro, wind, solar and nuclear instead to generate their electricity. This approach has avoided the controversial issues around the AGW discussion.

Perhaps our emission targets should not be measured in tonnes of CO2 but in reducing the death rates from coal and oil toxic emissions.

Martin. You make a valid point here, dismissing the phurphy of CO2 causing global warming, (actually it being greatly beneficial to the re-greening of the planet), I think that you will find that since the 60's, the amount of sulphur and particulate 'black carbon' emissions from modern super critical coal fired stations, those being built in China and India (at considerable cost) has reduced fugitive toxic emissions by up to 90%.
Roses1. Your argument still confuses me from your previous post. As clarified by Jardine and Curmudgeon, the 'market' will readily make the RET redundant if what you state is true. Why would AGL and Origin possibly invest in gas and coal if, as you claim, renewables are cheaper? It just doesn't make sense.