The argument that 'renewables are subsidised and hence would otherwise operate at a loss', is half-true. What the renewable energy industry needs at the moment, in Australia, is a leg up to deliver the cost saving that can be realised through economies of scale.

The fossil fuel industry however is still subsidised, after fifty years. Look at the aluminium industry for example. Elsewhere, clean-energy advocates have acknowledged the historical role of governments to subsidise 'public goods' - that includes the role governments have played in establishing, or subsidising, certain industries. Think Snowy Mountain hydro.

In addition, the full cost of emissions are not factored into the equation (affecting profit/loss) - these externalities are passed on, to future generations. If we are talking about a level playing field, emissions would be costed at least over $100/t Co2-e.

While not a subsidy per se, its certainly a factor worth considering when using 'clean' economic principles to argue against government support. Zero-emission energy companies simply want a level playing field.

Renewables projects are getting up, despite the fact that most governments still pay them lip-service, and call them niche-industries.

Claims that green jobs are temporary are counter-intuitive. All of the investment that is going into green tech is clearly creating jobs, lots of jobs. Sure 'construction jobs' could be classed as temporary, however the same definition would equaly apply to coal-powered construction jobs. With the potential of back-to-back projects however, the construction industry could have its order books full.

Of course, there's always the argument that we need to do what is required to ensure the survival of the species.

“The argument that 'renewables are subsidised and hence would otherwise operate at a loss', is half-true.”

It is wholly-true. If they would not operate at a loss, then no subsidy is needed, is it?

“What the renewable energy industry needs at the moment, in Australia, is a leg up to deliver the cost saving that can be realised through economies of scale.”

If that is true, then there’s no need for a subsidy. The only reason for a leg up, is because private capital would make a loss. Therefore the only reason to use public capital, is to try to hide the loss and force someone else to pay for it.

“The fossil fuel industry however is still subsidised, after fifty years.”

Certainly all such subsidies whatsoever should be abolished, both on economic and ecological grounds. No argument there.

But here are governments, having subsidized coal power for at least fifty years, telling us all it is the worst thing in the history of the world, still subsidizing it with taxes, and proposing new taxes and subsidies to fix the problem!

As for subsidies on 'public goods' grounds, the fact is, these handouts remove resources from more productive uses to less productive, more resource-intensive uses.

“In addition, the full cost of emissions are not factored into the equation (affecting profit/loss) …”

This begs the questions (a) why not?, and (b) how we are to know the “full cost”?

If the use of fossil fuel saves a human life, or a population, but risks a life, or population, of some other species at some uncertain future time or place, how is that to be factored in?

Profit and loss do not calculate “full cost”, but only things which are sold and bought against money. Economic calculation is only a means to ascertain the expediency of actions in removing uneasiness in the most practical and economic way. But many things are end values in themselves, such as the beauty of nature, ethical values, helping the disadvantaged, posterity, and so on. They cannot be evaluated in money at all.

However this does not in the least impair the usefulness of economic calculation. No calculation is required to acknowledge these first-order values in full and make due allowance for them.

The fact that the masses prefer to use fossil fuels for purposes that the greens consider unworthy, such as supporting human life, health, enjoyment and reproduction, does not stop the greens from arranging their own conduct in accordance with their own values. All the greens, and everyone who agrees with them, need to do is simply stop using fossil fuels, electricity, paper and so on.

But the greens don’t want to do that. They want everyone else to sacrifice their values under compulsion, and be forced to do what the greens are not willing to do voluntarily, precisely on end values that are incommensurate, and unknowable except subjectively.

They are in no different position, as regards end values, to that of an intolerant religion trying to suppress others peoples’ values and pleasures, relying on an implicit claim of being God’s (or “the planet’s” or “the species”) representatives.

The purpose of economic activity is to produce things that people value to remove a felt uneasiness of some kind. It is not to create “jobs” per se. If it were, we could just dig holes and fill them in again - the intellectual level at which the greens are arguing their case.

“Of course, there's always the argument that we need to do what is required to ensure the survival of the species.”

You haven’t established that.

I once asked my father why the abolition of property rights was not justified to save the world’s population from environmental catastrophe.

That wise old man said: “Environmental problems kill you slowly. Fascists kill you quick.”

I have shown why subsidized energy sources are worse for the environment, in the greens’ own terms. You still have not shown why they are better for the environment, nor how you know.

There is one thing that constantly puzzles me in these arguments about renewables vs. fossil fuels: it's always taken as a given by the renewables lobby that viable renewable energy is just around the corner, but that wicked, amorphous "fossil fuel interests" are actively retarding its development.

My question is: why?

Now, oil companies, for one, may not be the nicest guys in the world, but surely they're not stupid, either?

So, if renewable energy is such a goer, wouldn't the "fossil fuel interests" be all over it like flies on the proverbial? Snapping up the patents, buying out all the R&D, and assuring their prosperity into the future?

Certainly the "fossil fuel lobby" is cognizant that oil *is* a non-renewable resource, and as can be seen in places like Dubai, oil nations are already hedging their investments for an oil-less future. "The Stone Age came to an end not for a lack of stones and the oil age will end, but not for a lack of oil," as Sheik Ahmed Zaki Yamani noted.

So why wouldn't the fossil fuel folks be investing in renewables, if they're such a sure-fire winner?

What fanciful spin! All one has to do to ‘create’ green jobs is to claim certain existing occupations as being ‘green’. In this way, Simon gets out of the dubious honour of having to identify the jobs, if any, that would be ‘created’ by implementation of a CPRS or an ETS. However, the truth of the matter is that if such schemes are implemented, there will be downsizing not only of the carbon intensive industries, but of primary industries and many others that exist by virtue of Australia’s comparative advantage that is enabled by cheap efficient coal-derived energy. The Productivity Commission has concluded that wind turbine energy is at least twice as costly, and solar power ten times as costly, as coal-fired energy, and it should be noted that both those renewable energies are nowhere near as reliable as coal energy. It is a figment of the imagination to think that new green jobs will surpass all of the jobs lost through this downsizing. Perhaps the Greens’ ulterior motive is to train all the displaced employees as slaves, so that they can be used to turn the wind turbines when there is no wind.

But Raycom, the fact that green policies may cause human disutility, suffering or death is no proof against them. The greens stand for the instrinsic value of nature over and above human values. This does not apply to polar bears or kookaburras - their use of natural resources is fine. It's human beings' use of natural resources that the greens consider to be an unethical plague on an otherwise pristine scene. Thus the green belief system is essentially opposition to anything that humans value to further their life or their children's life.