Somehow we have been conned into thinking that ETS is the best/only way to drive down emissions. However, consider the following two options for encouraging investment in clean electricty:

- Option A (ETS): Carbon permits ae used to push the price of dirty electricty high enough for investment in clean electricity to be justified. PRICE OUTCOME: The average price of electricity has to jump far enough above the cost of producing clean electricity for investment in clean electricity to be justified.

- Option B: Leave the price of dirty electricity unchanged and use price and sales guarantees to drive investment in clean electricity. PRICE OUTCOME: The average price of electricty will ramp up slowly as the percentage of clean electricty rises.

Deciding which option is best is a no-brainer, and the answer isnt ETS. Keep in mind that it is the sudden jump in prices that have got so many people spooked about ETS.

The message is that we can find better, more cost effective ways of driving down emissions if we look at different sources of emission separately and find the best way of dealing with the issues associated with this source. If you like a Multiple Scheme System (MSA).

One more example - Driving down the average fuel consumption of new cars:
- Option A (ETS): Use carbon permits to push up the price of fuel and HOPE that this will drive down the average fuel consumption of new cars. OUTCOME: The average fuel consumption of new cars may drop by an unspecified amount.

- Option B: Leave the price of fuel unchanged and use government regulation to ramp down the average fuel consumption of new cars.

For more details see:

http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/climate_ctte/submissions/sub572.pdf

<<Mike.Pope trained as an economist..>>thus..clearly has no science knowledge..[thus..sees the carbon-tax..as an economic/measure to get in a new..global/tax]

ITS THE ECONOMY stupid..lol..its..a new_tax

cast your mind back..[pre the clean/air-act in the late eighties]..the globe was cooling...[now the polution clouds have cleared..the sun penitraits through...lol..[warning the planet

[if we want to cool the globe/DOWN..,is as simple as dirty-ing up the air..[so the heat gets reflected off the clouds..[ie stop/cleaning the smoke]

this auther<<business planner(1966-2006),>>so..thus see this is how he does his economic-BUSINESS..[get more tax from the people to subsidize the speculators..with nice clean/carbon-credit's..[for those same bonus-hungry..derivitives_traitors..on main street]

SEE a big buisness-subsidy here..to increase the real_polutions while increasing the new/industrial bubble..by building non-polutive energy generations systems..[on our tax]..the tax that will be put upon everything..[think of the worst excesses of the past where our import duties increased the cost of the import goods..[so businness could get a subsidy/advantage]

but..tarrifs were bad then..[yet..carbon-tax import/tarrif is good now?

lets call the proposed tarrif..the..scam the carbon-tax really is..[see that spains conversion to green has cost 2.9 jobs for every new job created...lol..dont be fooled that this clobal con will create/jobs

you will be taxed on simply breathing..[while the sun goes on doing what it allways has]..[think]...the sun shinning on your roof supposedly with only 8 solar cells on it..can save you 80 percent of your energy costs...if you could HArvest the whole energy falling on your peoperty/how much more energy is created?..[than you currently are using..if 80 percent can come simply from 8 solar cells[get it?]

we are being conned by enron-esq greedy/econo-MISTS,..trying to put their car-BON tax..[mark]..on everything we buy/sell

realise that the polutants..of re-gearing up industry..is only going to create more carbon..[if coal is bad..put a bad/export tax on it,..not the people..[obviously its price sensative..[so doubling its real cost not only will rake in the bucks from our exports..but allow for its income to offest its cost..to australians..by subsidy[on the cost of it for YOUR people kevin]

you want to lead..[double the cost of coal]..for those seeking it as a quick fix

rpg – I suspect you are right. ShadowMinister – you should know better than to malign jellyfish

John D/ShazBaz001. I don’t think anyone should hold their breath waiting on anyone to give up their cars in the interest of educing emissions. But we could propel vehicles with electricity derived from renewables – and do it a lot cheaper than using fossil fuels. Car makers are moving in this direction, though not in Australia.

If nothing else, a cap and trade ETS will curb CO2 emissions and raise revenue which can be applied to production of cleaner, cheaper electricity. What we need is a mechanism for compelling major polluters to reduce their emissions. A carbon tariff on imports could do it but you may know of better ways.

Mike - The reason we should challenge ETS is that it providing the excuse for the government to delay serious action on emissions to at least 2013. The delay would make sense if ETS were the only way to drive down emissions. The sudden price jumps, uncertaintainity re carbon permit prices and unproductive and/or unecessarily high price increases are all reasons to wait until the economy has recovered.

However, we don't have to wait for ETS to take serious action to reuce emissions. Right now we can afford to regulate down the average fuel consumption of new cars since this doesn't require any increase in fuel price. We can afford to accelerate our investment in clean electricty provided we drive it down with a scheme that only requires the average price of electricty to ramp up slowly in line with the average cost of producing electricty. What is important at the moment is that we start taking real action to drive down to reduce emissions from a limited number of sources instead of stuffing around looking for some grand ETS style scheme that is supposed to be the answer to everything.

On another issue: At the moment we should be pushing the case for plug in hybrid cars instead of pure electrics. Plug in hybrids don't require special infrastructure or better batteries to become practical for both short and long trips. My calcs suggest that I could reduce my petrol consumption by over 80% by using a plug in hybrid with a battery range of only 35 km. (Weekly trip mix of 6x30 km plus 1x100 km.)

Plug in hybrids should evolve into pure electric as power storage and charging technology advances.

John D - Our regulators should be fast tracking approval of both all electrics and hybrids. However, our local car makers should only get the government subsidies for all electrics.

Some of the new all electrics from China already have better batteries and would be ideal for the many drivers who do under 100 km a day. There are many types of hybrids becoming available overseas and Australians should not be excluded by regulatory delays.

A government sponsored trade-in subsidy policy would give all electric cars a giant boost. But where is the political will? Sadly, no sign of it in the 2009/2010 budget.

Sorry Quick response but, at this stage, pure electric cars are an expensive gimmick that are good for only relatively short trips away from home. By contrast, plug in hybrid would allow me to drive anywhere I can drive to in a conventional car while allowing me to drive electric only for most of my normal travel without having to spend megabucks on a long range battery. For my trip pattern, I could acheive one litre/100 km by converting a convetional car that currently consumes 5 litres/100 km. This is a big advance on the current average of over 10 litres/100 km.

I am attracted to technologies that can be introduced without major effort and have the potential to evolve into something better. Pure electric and hydrogen powered cars really need technical breakthroughs and massive instrastructure investment to get started. By contrast, plug in hybrid is already available overseas and doesn't require any extra infrastructure. A more thoughtful government would be focussing on plug in hybrid and introducing regulations now to drive down the average fuel consumption of new cars.

On a similar note I am attracted to solar thermal augmentation of existing power stations because it can start small, grow until daytime augmentation is maximized and then evolve into 24/7 solar power by the use of molten salt heat storage.