On the ABC’s 7.30 Report a couple of nights ago was a story that struck a very deep chord with me;

‘Renewable energy sector struggling’; http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2008/s2440907.htm

It is now more apparent than ever that our new PM is taking this country horribly in the wrong direction by not supporting the various forms of renewable energy, which are being boosted right up in other parts of the world, such as California under Governor Schwarzenegger. Obama has also promised huge inroads.

Australia is being left behind. Meanwhile we see Rudd’s Nation Building policy taking our country down the same old path of outdated infrastructure, not least on roads, and on a very active maintenance of extremely high population growth, as I mentioned in my last general thread;
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2357

Why on earth can’t he align his growth policy and job creation strategies with renewable energy?

There are massive numbers of jobs to be had in this sector. Why not place Australia at the cutting edge of this sort of thing, instead of allowing us to slip terribly behind, and then be beholden to countries that lead the way?

What about Environment Minister Garrett? My goodness, he is a terrible disappointment. He’s gone from one of my heroes when I was a Midnight Oil fan for a decade or more, to a sad sack if ever there was one. Check out what he had to say on the 7.30 Report in the link above.

This is extremely serious stuff. Where is Rudd’s headspace at with nation-building? Why is he so far off-track? Why don’t his colleagues or the Opposition object with the loudest of protests?

I agree Ludwig. It is in contrast with the government's environmental policy speak that it would support the automotive industries and others like aluminium without also supporting renewables industries.

A real commitment to reducing dependency on coal would be to roll out a domestic solar program that would see all new and older houses fitted with solar. In addition means testing the solar rebate was not in keeping with the government's claims of solid and progressive environmental credentials.

They're also doing what governments before them have done and watched while Australian innovations go overseas. We could have been exporting squillions of solar panels to California, creating jobs and raking it in. Instead we're sticking with the quarry model.

What a waste.

Ludwig, I think you know there are very powerful and influential vested interest groups that can hog-tie the aspirations of any well meaning politician whose life is only predicated by the time till the next election.

Q & A; If a government has enough backbone no one can hog tie them.

Ludwig; There is obviously a policy to build expressways as advocated
by Kevin Rudd on ABC1 TV last saturday.
Any large infrastructure project being started from about now will
be finished just in time not to need them. Here is a list that I know about.

The F3 to M2 dual road tunnel 8KM due to start 2009 2010.
Completion of motorway to Brisbane.
Second Sydney airport location not yet decided.
At least two new expressways in Melbourne.

There is a proposal to triplicate the rail line from Newcastle
to Strathfield for dedicated freight on one line and increased
passenger capacity for the Central Coast commuters at a cost of
$800 million.

Which infrastructure do you think will get the go ahead ?
Which infrastructure should get the go ahead ?

The ABC Child care fiasco is getting worse, the Government is putting
up another $30 million or so to continue till March.
A lady running child centres said that works out at a loss of $500,000
a year per centre so she doubts she will be taking up any of the centres on offer.

All in all it is becoming a real mess.
Rush out an spend they said. Put the money in the bank and the banks
will have more money to lend business and be able to employ people.
Spend it on TVs etc and a big percentage will end up in China.
I really don't think they understand how it works.

Oh dear Oh dear.

"There are massive numbers of jobs to be had in this sector. Why not place Australia at the cutting edge of this sort of thing, instead of allowing us to slip terribly behind, and then be beholden to countries that lead the way?"

Ludwig,
That sounds good in theory. Maybe "The Lucky Country" tag we have is because we've managed to have a great standard of living by taking a back seat on development and simply adopting the technological gains made by other countries. We effectively trade our primary products for manufactured products and technologies. It seems to work. And we don't have the entrepreneurship/slum divide that the US does. Just the quarry/beach epithet. Not great, but we can comfortably live with it.

Another reason for our somewhat stunted industrial status is the US got a big jump start on all other developed nations. It seems each time a home grown company gets to a certain level of productivity and maturity in Australia, it either feels the need to go offshore or it gets bought out by bigger overseas companies. The buds are always being nipped.

So, as we can't go head to head with the bigger players, we have to find our niche in the right sized market. It takes time.

I agree about Garrett. He just seems to throw around political lines. He's not very convincing

Ludwig,
I agree in principal with what you say however like all idealistic aspirations Rudd and Garrett have to deal with what is possible. I feel Garrett would have been better in the Greens as a senator. He is ideologically hog tied to labour’s grand compromise.

Examinator’s law of compromise states “The more people involved in a compromise the less option are available and therefore the less meaningful its outcomes are.” (I’m sure some philosopher will have plagiarised it somewhere).

Q&A is right about vested interests although I think his conclusion is right for the wrong reasons. The public doesn’t want dramatic changes wide ranging reformers always get it in the neck.
The greater part of society is frightened by rapid changes. Most of which are influenced by cynical vested interests, with statements like “if business doesn’t get this or that they will axe jobs”. This terrifies the average person.
Consequently people demand a steady as she goes ‘administrative PM’ than a real leader that might frighten the horses.
Howard lost the plot when he tried to drastically change peoples comfort zones. Hence our elections are between those seeking the middle ground.

Tragically too many jobs and interests are tied up in the status quo. You may note that Kalifornia doesn’t have any real motor manufacturing, coal industry and the electricity is a mess the people are demanding change. The industry is less powerful/influential giving the Govenator less interests to compromise.

Pity about Australia being so reliant/dominated by the extractive industries.

It's all about power.

Perhaps, just for once this bloke has got something right.
He may have looked hard at europe, & seen that alternative energy is alternative pie in the sky.

The day when a company offers to supply renewable energy, at competitive rates, with no subsidy, will be the only time to think about this pipe dream.

Wood fired boilers are about the only renewable energy that works, at present, but I doubt you lot include this in your dreams.

I 1/2 agree with you Ludwig, but it is in no way as simple as you paint it.

Firstly, when it comes to electricity Australia, or most of the world for that matter doesn't need renewable electricity like we need a replacement for oil, say. Australia isn't about to run out of coal any time soon.

Secondly, renewable electricity doesn't help us economically. It is more expensive than coal fired electricity, and likely will remain so for some time.

Thirdly, energy production is a very capital intensive industry. For every $1 paid out in wages, you have to put many dollars in for the stock and machinery. Where this that capital going to come from where there isn't any to be had? In terms of stimulating the economy, there are simply better options.

Yes, there is global warming to worry about, and that is a good reason to invest in renewables. But I am sure that doesn't rate very highly when you are struggling to keep the economy moving - and I notice you didn't mention it.

Obviously there are things we could use, and use soon, like coming up transport in a hydrocarbon-less world. Maybe a better battery, lighter cars - but such inventive endeavours don't produce a lot of jobs. The bottom line is it not as simple as you are making out.

Hasbeen: "alternative energy is alternative pie in the sky"

Maybe. The only thing that strikes me about renewables is if you put in a subsidy with a target - eg 10% or 20% renewables or something, then unlike most engineering projects rather than taking longer than expected it takes a much shorter time than predicted to hit the target - as in under 1/2 usually. So, for example, in order for Europe to hit its target for electricity for 2010 they need a growth rate of 10% in wind power. The current growth rate is 40%.

If it is indeed a pie in the sky, it ain't very high. At least not for Eurpoe, where energy is expensive.

http://www.erec.org/fileadmin/erec_docs/Documents/Publications/EREC_Targets_2020_def.pdf

rstuart. it's pie in the sky, because as with Denmark for example, it just don't work.

They have a massive investment in wind. It represents 30% of their installed generation capacity, but produces only 6% of their power.

That 30% capacity represents over 40% of their investment in generation capacity.

This type of "Investment" would long ago sent any company broke, if it weren't for huge subsidies, paid at taxpayer expense. This will of course send the country broke ultimately.

Fortunately for them, as part of the EU, when their lights go out, they can all migrate to Germany, where they have seen the light, [I really am sorry for that one], & are now backpedalling away from this stupidity, as fast as their little legs will take them, with Italy, & a few others in hot pursuit.

It looks as if it will be the englishmen, out in the midday sun, yet again, but this time, because they have no light to see by, at night.

Hasbeen,

I tried to verify the figures you quoted. This is what I found:

- Wind produces 11.4% of Denmark's power.

- It produces 19% of their power consumption. Note this means Denmark is almost at the 2020 target of 20% renewables for its electricity consumption.

- As you can probably tell from those two figures the lights are unlikely to go out, as they export around 25% of their power.

I could not find any figures on investment. Could you supply a link verifying your claims please?

Mine are from:

http://www.ens.dk/graphics/UK_Facts_Figures/Statistics/yearly_statistics/2007/energy%20statistics%202007%20uk.pdf

In that document you can see Denmark's electricity production from wind has been stable at about 10% since 1990. If that report can be believed, it was closer to an amazing 61% in 1980. As far as I can tell the country has shown no signs of going broke in the 30 years since.

On the contrary, Ludwig should probably hold Denmark up as an example. After the oil shock in the 1970's, they made a conscious decision to use renewables. It paid off big time. They now export 90% of their wind turbine production.

For base load reliable power there seems to be two real candidates.
Solar thermal that has an advantage that it can be retrofitted to
existing coal stations. Night supply can obtained from molten salts.

Geothermal as per Geodynamics Pty Ltd in South Australia. (hot rocks)

These two systems are where the government should be really active.
I must read the site provided by rstuart as it seems so different to
everything I have previously read.
Output of windmills falls to the cube root of the wind speed, this is
the cause of their usual poor performance.

Rstuart wrote

In that document you can see Denmark's electricity production from
wind has been stable at about 10% since 1990. If that report can be
believed, it was closer to an amazing 61% in 1980.
Unquote

Did you separate out the other renewables ?
I note that in 1990 most of the renewable energy came from the burning
of straw, waste and heat pumps. Wind seemed a very small fraction then.
Even today wind is only part of the renewables in Denmark although
becoming the larger part, but is still around 10%.
I visited Denmark in the 1980s and did not see a wind turbine.
I feel certain that the 61% had nothing to do with wind.

Q&A; “…there are very powerful and influential vested interest groups that can hog-tie the aspirations of any well meaning politician…”

Big Arnie doesn’t appear to be hog-tied. Strongly pressured by powerful vested-interest lobbies yes definitely, but not entirely beholden to them.

California and Australia are essentially the same sort of society with the same sort of pressures from big business and the same demands from the general public.

Rudd has got plenty of room to move.

Examinator; “The public doesn’t want dramatic changes wide ranging reformers always get it in the neck.”

I think that the public would generally be happy with a fair bit of obvious change if it was perceived to be in the right direction…. and if it is good enough for California, with Obama being seen to support it and follow suit for the whole of the US, then the general consensus would surely be that Oz should engage in the same sort of initiatives.

Secondly, the time is very right indeed for large-scale changes, with the financial crisis hitting hard, capitalism being brought into question, and climate change on the top of the agenda.

continued

Bazz; “Which infrastructure do you think will get the go ahead ? Which infrastructure should get the go ahead ?”

Down in your part of the world, I’m not sure, but up here in north Queensland and on the Victoria Hwy in NT and the top section of the Great Northern Hwy in WA for example, the road upgrades seem largely unnecessary. So I’ll keep it general; far less expenditure on huge new roads and far more on renewable energy and on improving transport efficiency – rail, smaller cars, etc.

RobP, rstuart, OK so there might be problems with renewable energy development in OZ compared to more densely populated places like California. But does that mean that we should be just sitting back and letting others lead the way? Shouldn’t we be finding our niche industries for the development of a society that is not based on oil and that is truly sustainable, while being as independent of other countries as possible?

Can I ask you and Hasbeen and indeed anyone, just what you think Rudd should be doing to this end.

Bazz: "Did you separate out the other renewables ?"

No Bazz, I didn't. And on re-reading the document I see wind power is a small proportion of the renewables - even now. The figures I quoted were for the total renewables. Sorry for the misleading info. The document looks like official government stats, and so I would trust it. I just didn't read the detail closely enough.

From the document wind power constitutes just 2.3% of Denmark's total electricity production, or 3% of their electricity consumption.

That leaves two unanswered questions in my mind. What did Denmark use for electricity in 1980 (production jumped 10 fold from 1980 to 1990), and where did Hasbeen get his figures from?

Ludwig: "Can I ask you and Hasbeen and indeed anyone, just what you think Rudd should be doing to this end."

I don't know, Ludwig. But effectively this is a zero sum game - they government has a fixed pot of money it has to spend. Although you don't say it directly, you are effectively arguing that renewables is a better place to spend it, instead of say new port infrastructure, housing stimulus, hospitals or whatever.

You obviously think renewables are the better choice. It doesn't seem so obvious to me. It would help your case considerably if you at least tried to compare what we would get out of investing in renewables versus the others.

rstuart, by way of clarification; I want to see most of the money being spent on unnecessary infrastructure, which seems to amount to many hundreds of millions, be put into sustainability-oriented pursuits.

I certainly don’t want any current expenditure on health, education and numerous other genuine quality of life sectors to be redirected in this manner.

And of course I want to see immigration reduced right down to the bare bones so that expenditure on health and the like actually does translate into the best improvements for us all instead of it largely going towards providing more of the same level of service for ever more people.

It is al very sad really. I know lots of you had great hopes for
Kevin 747 and you must be getting worried.
I am afraid I am too much of a cynic to expect better.

The rescue attempt of the US motor industry will fail I feel sure.
What effect will that have here ?
It is all very well for the government to throw all that money at us
and spend spend, but they have left nothing for these energy
infrastructure needs. I know why this is so they are just too wrapped
up in global warming. Have a read of this from Poland;

http://tinyurl.com/6xplyq

10,000 delegates kicking their heels in the halls while the real
fiddling goes on behind closed doors.

Ludwig,
The problem I see is that if Rudd overtly gives meaningful support to whereby it couldbe a real potential competitor to the coal, uranium, oil, power generation any serious alternative energy sources all hell would break out. There would be both a capital flight and potential international consequences. We aren't big enough to dictate internationally.

Domestically the business lobbies, (the industries) would fear up the “rent a panic brigade” with all sorts of “quasi economic, return of Communism” clap trap and Labor would face a mother of all 'anti' campaigns and the pro business parties (status quo) would obliterate the government. Just watch the right wing of OLO’s responders and their 'obsolete (?) take on capitalism and how this would bring down the country.

Rudd and ministers are faced with either being able to immediately offer better options ( better job code for more $) in those electorates where such a campaign would bite or plan on imminent retirement.

People want change so long as it can’t be SHOWN to disadvantage them.
Examinator’s law of political rate of change “hasten slowly lest vested interests notice”. :-)

PS I’m not saying this is good only that it’s reality (a joint flaw) of Democracy/capitalism. Better know as the sinking ship syndrome…"everyone for themselves!

"RobP, rstuart, OK so there might be problems with renewable energy development in OZ compared to more densely populated places like California. But does that mean that we should be just sitting back and letting others lead the way? Shouldn’t we be finding our niche industries for the development of a society that is not based on oil and that is truly sustainable, while being as independent of other countries as possible?"

It's certainly a noble goal as well as enlightened self-interest to do so. The only rider I'd put on it is do it when the time and opportunity is right for us. I imagine there are people in industry who are trying to do just what you say, but can't succeed because the weight of past human practice is swamping them. It could just be that the rise of Asia as a market power is the circuit breaker that makes the difference in terms of sufficiently breaking up and diversifying existing markets. Basically, any difference is going to made by a totally new player and not more of the same Western thinking. That really is a necessary precondition in any serious paradigm shift.

This is a most challenging thread. Ludwig has certainly highlighted a glaring disparity between claimed concern and lack of action taken by the Rudd government on renewable energy. The following quotes highlight aspects of getting renewable energy up and running in Australia.

Ludwig says: "Shouldn’t we be finding our niche industries for the development of a society that is not based on oil and that is truly sustainable, while being as independent of other countries as possible?"

Q&A says: "Ludwig, I think you know there are very powerful and influential vested interest groups that can hog-tie the aspirations of any well meaning politician whose life is only predicated by the time till the next election."

examinator says: "The problem I see is that if Rudd overtly gives meaningful support to [any serious alternative energy source] whereby it could be a real potential competitor to the coal, uranium, oil, [or] power generation, all hell would break out. There would be both a capital flight and potential international consequences."

rstuart says: "... energy production is a very capital intensive industry. For every $1 paid out in wages, you have to put many dollars in for the stock and machinery. Where [is] that capital going to come from where there isn't any to be had?"

Bazz says: "It is all very well for the government to throw all that money at us and [say] 'spend spend', but they have left nothing for these energy infrastructure needs."

RobP says: ".. we don't have the entrepreneurship/slum divide that the US does. Just the quarry/beach epithet. Not great, but we can comfortably live with it."

michael_in_adelaide, in the comments to the OLO article 'Ideas the engine of new growth' by Craig Emerson, Minister for Small Business in the Rudd Government, says: "Unfortunately this article perpetuates the misconception that ideas alone are enough to grow an economy. Ideas are great but useless unless the energy to implement them exists." See: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8284#129582

The Rudd government: begging for ideas, or selling us out?

RobP; “The only rider I'd put on it is do it when the time and opportunity is right for us.”

So when is the right time? When things are booming there is no incentive to change our ugly ways and when things are crook we just dig our heels in and just reinforce the same old methodology.

I’d say that the time is right right now!

Now when the whole capitalistic system has been brought into question.

Now when climate change is of major concern.

Now when China’s economy is showing strong signs of rapid slow-down.

Now when peak oil looms large.

Now when sustainability could be of major concern throughout the populace if the likes of Rudd would just start expressing that concern.

Now when the government is in nation-building and massive-spending mode, when hundreds of millions of dollars could be redirected away from unnecessary infrastructure and put into sustainability-oriented pursuits.

Now with a new leader, at the start of a new political term.

NOW, the time is absolutely right for the paradigm shift away from endless growth and onto the essential foundation of sustainability.

Ludwig,

If the reasons you give are so overwhelming, I think it's useful to consider why Rudd would choose NOT to take the developmental path you suggest.

Maybe he knows after discussions with Government officials that:

1. Australia does not have the industrial clout to take a leading role.
2. If we take a holier than thou approach with other countries, they'll just turn around and say, "OK, you go do it yourself", making us look ineffectual when we can't. We thus lose any momentum we've built up to take a leading diplomatic role in future.
3. We don't physically have the manpower to put the ideas into practice.
4. We don't have the financial clout to coerce or coordinate the activities of other countries.
5. We are largely dependent on other countries for the technologies that we would need to implement climate change activities.
6. Being a minor player and by going first, we may waste a lot of money we can't afford on trials that subsequently are bettered by research in other countries, thus putting the whole activity at risk.
7. Even if we do do some good research, we'll just be bought out and overtaken by other bigger players overseas.

Anyway, there have been a few Australians that have made a contribution: Andrew Blakers of ANU and his sliver cell technology and the makers of the solar farm technology that was opened by Arnie in California are two that have been in the news. There are probably more beavering away in the background as well. No doubt the progress will continue, gradually attracting more and more effort and research dollars, until it becomes a full-blown industry here and overseas.

So, to you question of when is the right time: I'd say the answer is simply whenever the idea becomes workable, bearing in mind that in any society there are a variety of contributors who all add something in different ways and at different phases of a project's life.

Rob, in response to your points;

1 & 2. It would be nice if Australia could take a leading role in renewable energy development and various other sustainability-related industries. But that is not the most important thing. Of course we should be joining the momentum that is happening in other parts of the world, but again that is not the highest priority. What matters is what we can do to direct our own society and country into sustainability mode. We don’t have to take a leading role or a holier than thou approach. Anyway, if we set a good example, we effectively will be taking a leading role.

3. If we’ve got the manpower to undertake Rudd’s 4.7 billion dollar infrastructure plan, then we’ve got the manpower to undertake any sustainability pursuits that could be implemented if a good portion of that money, and labour, was redirected towards it.

4. We do have the political capabilities of organising coordination with other countries.

5. We’re not independent of other countries and neither should we be. We should be working with them. So yes we are dependent on others to some extent. But that’s fine.

6. We don’t have to go first with technological advances. There are plenty of good initiatives being taken up around the world that we should be getting into.

7. If our research gets bought out by bigger players, that’s not so bad. That doesn’t mean it is lost to us.

The problem with the notion of the time not being right until the ideas become workable in a socially and economically acceptable manner is that we desperately need these sorts of changes now. There is a great deal of resistance to change from the entrenched big business lobby and from governments and populations. So if the new agenda doesn’t get solidly pushed, it is not likely to happen until way later than it should have, meaning that the hardship for us all will be that much greater.

Ludwig,

What you've said is completely reasonable to me. When I said things should be workable, I really meant they should be done in a way where the people doing the implementing were not unduly stressed or wrenched in the process.

Your comment, "There is a great deal of resistance to change from the entrenched big business lobby and from governments and populations." is what worries me a bit. If the Government says to those in its control to go in Direction A without being aligned with big business, and big business consequently decides to go in Direction B, the implementers in the middle tend to get painfully wrenched and the whole thing can be a big failure.

I suppose I'm saying that taking the right amount of time means that all the elements necessary to make the idea work get aligned so that many hands are doing the work in a concordant manner rather than just throwing a few human sacrifices to the wolves. Taking time is also useful and necessary because it allows the political processes behind the scenes to work to smooth the way for the implementers.

Ludwig's opening post links to the ABC 7:30 Report story 'Renewable energy sector struggling'. I must confess I did not immediately read it. I should have. I re-copy it here: http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2008/s2440907.htm

It is not hard to see why Ludwig was so depressed by its content. The introductory remarks by Kerry O'Brien include this statement:

"Here in Australia, there's still no sign of the 20 per cent renewable energy target promised by Labor during last year's election campaign. The delay has frozen billions of investment dollars in Australia's wind and solar industries. The next casualty could well be the country's largest wind turbine factory, which is threatening to cut 200 jobs."

That claim did not sit right with me. I was sure Labor had already legislated for a 20% mandatory renewable energy target, having recently read a departmental paper dealing with NRETs. I found the link to the relevant Department of Energy, Utilities and Sustainability (DEUS) document here, in this post,: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2103#49034 . ( A word of caution: many of my posts in this thread could be described as a work of 'faction', a work in which the reader must separate fact from fiction for themselves. All external links, however, to the best of my knowledge, are factual.)

Of course, as anyone who reads the linked OLO post and its successor will realise, I have conflated existing NSW 20% NRET legislation with promised, but not yet delivered, extension of 10% Federal MRET legislation to the 20% level. I did not conflate with respect to the 20% mandatory target being a Labor policy: it's already legislated in NSW, and acknowledged by Federal Labor, in a situation where all participatory governments in the national electricity market are Labor.

Between the 2007 Federal elections and the ABC story, the NSW Iemma ministry imploded and the erstwhile intended sell-out of publicly owned power distribution, in the face of 80% public disapproval, seemingly stalled.

Is something being hidden?

Well, Ludwig, that was quick, wasn't it!

I heard it announced on the news this morning that today, yes TODAY, the Federal government intends to formalise its position with respect to the 20/20 renewable energy targets. Now I'm cautious as to exactly whether this means a 20% mandatory renewable energy target, but I have a feeling that between the ABC 7:30 Report program and this thread of yours the Feds may have been prodded into action.

Contrast the apparent burning of the midnight oil needed to produce this announcement with the statement in the program 'Renewable energy sector struggling' attributed to Kerry Brewster: "Environment Minister Peter Garrett says the 20 per cent renewable energy target promised by Labor during the election campaign won't be a reality until at least halfway through next year." It seems, on the surface, as if Environment Minister Garrett has either been being kept in the dark, or has been speaking with forked tongue, with respect to this statement of his in that same program: "... There's a clearly laid out timetable, which we will stick to."

Its either that, or the 20% MRET timetable has been suddenly moved up. I wonder what, specifically, has (seemingly) moved them into action? Maybe some of the responses to Federal Small Business Minister Craig Emerson on the OLO article 'Ideas the engine of new growth', especially perhaps this one: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8284#129755

Or are all five eastern States governments and the Federal government, seeing themselves caught mid-stream facilitating the energy asset-stripping of the Australian polity by means of a device involving evasion of the provisions of the Constitution, now frantically rushing to be appearing to do the 'right thing', renewables wise, having hung an Australian company out to dry while they were trying to cover their Constitution-evading tracks around the national electricity market?

Here's Andrew Robb's argument in The Australian for carefully implementing industrial change:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24799125-5013479,00.html

Forrest, this is good news. Well, at least it is something….which is probably better than nothing! http://www.climateark.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=113221

I should be very positive about it…but when it is viewed in conjunction with the manic continuous expansion ethic and the miserable 5% cut in greenhouse gas emissions, you‘ve got to wonder. I do get the feeling, as I often express on OLO, that doing little bits about environmental/sustainability issues like this amounts to solidly supporting the status quo and just giving it a thin green veneer.

Anyway, good on the 7.30 Report and OLO and ol’ Ludnuts as well (pats self on back...and tries very hard to convince self that his efforts do actually sometimes count for something)… and all those who contributed to this thread! ( :> )

Rob, from Andrew Robb’s piece in The Australian:

“Serious inroads into emissions will best be achieved from a position of economic strength, with people in jobs and business profitable.”

Well, we’d certainly have the greatest financial wherewithal to implement serious inroads into a largely renewable energy regime in boom times, but…

There is an awful lot of pressure to maintain the status quo when things are ripping along, as opposed to a lot of deep thought on how to change our methodology when things ain’t going so well.

In recessionary times, people feel the need to be more efficient in order to minimise expenses.

In the down times, labour for the implementation of renewable energy industries and industries running on renewable energy is abundant, whereas in boom times labour is in short supply.

When the economy is booming, there is pressure to keep immigration high in order to supply labour. This constant rapid population growth works directly against overall improvements in energy usage and cuts in greenhouse gas emission. In less economically vibrant times, immigration should be reduced greatly.

We can’t wait for the return to a booming economy to seriously act on climate change. The good times of the last decade are over. We are unlikely to see anything that good for a long time.

All in all, I question Andrew Robb’s assertion. I’m inclined to think that the best time to implement wide-ranging changes is NOW…now that we have fallen off the back end of the boom, and are in strong need of modifying our whole economic philosophy.

Ludwig,

What you say makes sense and I suspect it will happen. It also accords with what I've said previously in another thread that Labor are the instigators of change in modern Australian politics, while the Liberals are the capitalisers.

There is no better time to bring in change than in the aftermath of a crisis or bad event (cf the Declaration of Independence). My main interest at this stage is that the Government tempers its reforms so that the ordinary population are not victims of the process of reform itself. It looks from Rudd's target and Paul Kelly's piece at

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24811094-12250,00.html

that Rudd has charted a middle path that does the least amount of damage and that spreads out the pain more equally.

I'm not so sure that the news provided in the link given by Ludwig in the 30th post to this thread is necessarily good. That it is 'something' is beyond question, but exactly what might that be?

In the news item that announced the committment of A$ 500 million of taxpayers money to the Renewable Energy Fund, the statement that really lept out at me was this one:

"The only condition, [Rudd] said in an accompanying statement, was "availability of suitable demonstration projects.""

That, to me, indicates the die is already substantially cast in the government's mind, as to what technologies it intends to subsidise. Existing ones. Technologies that have ALREADY been developed, probably dependent upon intellectual property rights (patents), WITHOUT government funding! How else could they qualify as 'suitable demonstration projects' in the terms of this announcement? And 'suitable' is in itself a word that is as wide as it is long, isn't it!

Now I don't want to rain too heavily upon the Federal government's parade, but it has to be recognised that the beneficiaries of this taxpayer largess will almost certainly be large foreign corporations. Like, for example, Chevron (in oil and geothermal), a corporation that I noted ran an advertisment promoting itself on, I think, Channel 9 recently for reasons, given its heretofore seeming absence from the Australian corporate scene, upon which one can only speculate.

Why then do Australian taxpayers (you, your children, your children's children) have to financially assist such likely behemoths to roll out their EXISTENT capabilities in renewable energy?

Ah, but there's an unresolved problem or two, isn't there! Like the price to be charged. Like the electricity industry throughout Australia not being fully privatised yet. The behemoths, without that pre-condition being achieved, don't hold a mortgage over Australia's future.

Its a downright shame that a hot dry rock prospect in the Hunter region of NSW, virtually co-located with the publicly owned existing coal-fired generating capacity on an existing distribution grid, seems to be tied up going nowhere.