If Senator Milne was to resign from her taxpayer funded super (Gee where can I get this sort of a deal?)which is, like the good Senator, beyond all economic reason or even common sense. If she faced the increased taxation that the rest of us will, she might have a better understanding but I doubt it!
That's right Christine call it "climate change". Now that the Earth has stopped warming you cannot keep calling it "Global warming".
Truly, I am in favour of using less resources but it has to be cheaper. It is that simple. Work out a cost for house solar panel electricity and then put that up against the price. The contractor wants all the savings in his price. If we only paid the real cost,more people would do it. That would be too hard for you Senator as you want us just to pay and pay!

The temptation for me to indulge in an ad-hominem attack is strong in this case. But I won't.

Even if compensation were not paid to existing coal-fired generation investors, there would be exactly no reduction in that generation. This is because the operating costs, even with the carbon tax, are lower than the operating costs for the next higher generation plants, which are gas-fired. The capital costs are much higher, but that money has been spent, and cannot be recovered.

So giving compensation is not causing coal-fired plant to remain in operation longer than it otherwise would. The only effect of compensation is to ensure that people who made investment decisions in good faith years or decades ago don't suffer because the rules are changed after the game has started.

Without compensation, some of the existing owners might be forced into liquidation. The plant it self would be sold to new owners, and would continue operation, but investors (including superannuation funds) would lose money.

The downstream effect would be on decisions to invest in other types of generation plant (in particular, gas). If the government changes the rules today in a way that adversely effects coal-fired generation investors, then it could do so tomorrow affecting gas-fired investors. As a result, that investment would be deterred. At the very least, new investment would incur an risk premium, paid by customers. At worst, the investment wouldn't occur, and we would get power blackouts.

Since the compensation is only to be paid for existing plant, the carbon tax will still shift the balance for new plant towards less polluting systems. Over the course of time, existing coal-fired plant will be retired as it reaches the end of its useful life. Its replacement will not be coal-fired. In the mean time, plant built to meet our ever increasing demand will also not be coal-fired. If CO2 emissions really are a problem, then the carbon tax will in due course result in a reduction compared with what would otherwise have been.

Sylvia,

I don't get it. If compensation to the coal fired generators doesn't change the comparative economics against lower carbon options (as you claim), why is it necessary to pay it to protect sunk investments?

But the idea is to pass on the extra costs of the permits in the price so that the consumer can make the choice without hidden subsidies for pollution. Making the subsidies explicit just shows how broken the so called "business as usual" arguments are.

The Greens are an irritating menace to society. They have never been in government, and they never will be. This particular example of the grim-faced Greens denies that the globe has not warmed since 1998.

Her talk of zero emissions is a complete fairy tale. Like all politicians in opposition parties, she rambles on, knowing full well that she will never have to come up with the goods.

The Greens have no idea of what is possible and what is not. They believe that we can have a land of milk and honey without all of the ‘nasty’ things that provide the profits enabling the life style that they enjoy as much as the rest of us do.

The influence these fruit loops could have in the Senate on the slightly less loopy ALP Government is a worry.

Christine,
Every democracy needs people like you.
However you do go overboard on this subject.
To advocate that we go ahead with high level CO2 reduction regardless
of whether China & India also make similar reductions or not seems
very much like an exercise in making you feel good.
The effect on the rest of us will be dramatic economically.

I have detected a change taking place in scientific opinion and I find
it hard to believe that with your resources you have not also noticed it.
If I was to be uncharitable I could suggest that a change is the cause
of your urgency.

It is time for a scientific reevaluation.

Sylvie Elise at the moment all coal fired power stations in NSW are owned by the people of NSW - not superannuation funds. The coal fired plant at Yallourn in Vic was owned by Texas Utilities but is now owned by a Chinese or Singapore consortium, again no superannuation funds involved. Yes we have to include coal fired electricity generation and petrol in the carbon trading scheme. Its totally stupid to try to ameliorate the rising cost of fuel for motorists, truck drivers yes, but the average Aussie battler is no longer going to be able to play "mum's taxi" and will have to commute by public transport. This will mean that the Victorian practice of hiring nurses and teachers on a "just in time" basis about 30 minutes before the shift starts will become a practice of the past as it takes 3 or 4 times as long to travel by public transport as it does by car.

The money raised should be spent on

1. improving rail access to the outer suburbs and the enlarged coastal communities up and down our eastern seaboard rather than tarting up the Pacific Highway. Ooops I forgot the road construction companies pay a lot more money to lobby Canberra than the state rail authorities.

2. subsidies to install solar electricity plants and insulation in our dwellings.

I noticed that in Victoria a house gets a 5 star energy rating when there is a solar panel on the roof and a 200 litre rainwater tank, there is still no requirement to align the building so it is solar passive and design the dwelling for cross ventilation for those hot summer nights.

I might be frightened that Penny Wong is ignorant of her portfolio but I am totally disgusted with Peter Garrett, former president of Australian Conservation Foundation.

Both Liberal and Labor politicians are unable to whistle up the autumn rains that have failed to fall in Victoria for the past decade which threatens desertification of large areas of the state which now receive a third of their climatic average rainfall