Australian ETS delayed
Was reported last week that the Australian Government is looking to delay its ETS from implementation in 2010, due to an select inquiry into its effectiveness.
So the small delay in NZ has us on much the same path as Rudd’s Government in NZ.
In hindsight supporters of an ETS should be very pleased that Labour and National delayed it coming into effect on 1 January 2009 as originally planned. Having power and petrol prices jump up just as we are heading into the worst recession for 70 years would have engineered a huge backlash against the ETS.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: carbon emissions trading, Climate Change, ETS
February 15th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Dang that reality, always getting in the way of good ol’ well intentioned socialism..!!!
“due to an select inquiry into its effectiveness.”
Wow, so there was no question of its effectiveness prior?? FFS. Its just mind boggling that these people have the utter arrogance to presume they possess the intellect to represent us.
February 15th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Hi David, sorry to be off topic and so persistent on this but do you think you will write something on the proposed expansion of the DNA database? It looks like it will be in breach of BORA and it is an undermining of basic freedoms. It would be really good if a prominent right-wing commentator with a history of speaking in favour of freedom such as yourself were to speak out about it. If there’s a pundit the National government will listen to it’s you.
[DPF: I don't know enough yet about what's proposed to blog on it. From the little I have picked up they will only retain samples of those convicted of crimes. Is this correct? If so, doesn't seem a major change]
February 15th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Now, how about a select committee inquiry into the blatant scientific fraud being perpetrated by the public by proponents of Anthropogenic Global Warming?
Off-Topic for those who take an interest: Who else thinks the ultra-low plateau in the 10.7 cm solar radio flux is a sign of incoming solar cycle 24, and hence a decade or so of cooling?
February 15th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
A small victory for common sense, now we need to really work on the bastards to scrap the thing altogether.
February 15th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
As I just posted at Homepaddock
“The interesting thing is the bushfires have generated more carbon emmissions than the rest of the country does all year.
Even like this show how silly the Global Warmongerers really are and how stupid we would be to follow their mantra and expect results.
Whether or not climate change is happening, there is little or nothing we can do to stop it.
The fires show the futility of it all.”
February 15th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Sorry guys, but this is actually part of Rudd’s plan to promote the ETS.
You have to understand the Australian parliamentary set-up to get this. And, of course, appreciate that Rudd and co are master politicians who are intent on destroying the Liberal party. Good policy is not their main objective.
The Government has sent the ETS to the House of Representatives Economic Committee, a Committee naturally dominated by Labour. This is to allow supporters of the scheme an opportunity to parade their views. The Committee will, I am sure, present a report saying that the scheme is a good idea.
Such a report will be used by the Government to beat the opposition round the head in a quiet and friendly manner. With drought, fires and a general lack of water, the public in Australia are far more positive about an ETS than here. So Labour want to use the committee as an opportunity to taunt Malcolm Turnball, who is showing signs of being anti the ETS (unlike John Howard in the end).
The Government there has also promised that 100% of revenue raised will be recycled back to industry and consumers. In the first three years, there will be a one-for-one reduction in petrol prices to off-set the effect of the ETS.
February 15th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
Then what they say about Aussies is true then.
February 15th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
dpf said: [DPF: I don't know enough yet about what's proposed to blog on it. From the little I have picked up they will only retain samples of those convicted of crimes. Is this correct? If so, doesn't seem a major change]
It is for anyone charged, or simply arrested, for a “relevant offense”. Relevant is left to the police to decide and there appears to be no process for destruction of samples in the event of release without charge or discharge.
Even if there was, I don’t believe that such process would be followed as I am aware of several instances (diversion, fingerprints, photographic evidence) where information meant to be expunged from the record was not.
[DPF: As I said, my understanding of the law change is that if you are not charged or found not guility, then the sample must be disposed of. I would not expect the law to specify the process of destroying samples - that is the job of the relevant agencies to come up with a process that complies with the law]
February 15th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
Ferdinand if you don’t commit crime you have nothing to worry about, simple as that. Now back to the topic of what a pile of shit AGW and ETS are.
February 15th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
“Having power and petrol prices jump up just as we are heading into the worst recession for 70 years would have engineered a huge backlash against the ETS”
You say that as if it would have been a BAD thing…
February 15th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
This may sound like a stupid question, but I find it difficult to get good and correct information to answer it but….
What is the Emissions Trading Scheme??
If it is a trading scheme, what gets bought and sold. If I bought a unit of emissions, what do I get? How do I get a unit of emissions to sell.
How do the big world polluters participate, like the USA, China, India and those Orung Utan hating treefellers Indonesia?
If Rodney Hide were to believe, Billions would go to Russia where there are a lot of trees and oxymoronically, plenty of oil.
Non-biased web sites please. That means no links to Green Party web sites
February 15th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
In addition,
What about the carbon sink of grass. Why are farmers being taxed. Agriculture is just a carbon cycle. Grass absorbs all the carbon agriculture produces. In fact, some of the carbon product is exported in the form of meat, wool and dairy products. Therefore shouldn’t the country of destination that purchases the carbon product pay a carbon credit to the farmer?
Could someone please answer me. Why does the Emissions Trading scheme confuse me so? Am I the only one who thinks the last government lacked scientific common sense?
Someone please put me out of my misery!
February 16th, 2009 at 1:20 am
With a billion cows in India, and their propensity to take a dump any where.
The humans there also dump anywhere.
They as sure as hell, will not be trading fairly.
Make perfect sense for us to send billions to Russia. Why can’t we choose a nicer country like Finland. Brazil.
This whole scam is the cleverest rort yet.
You buy nothing, you do nothing, and sell nothing. And the traders make a huge fortune.
You just know things are wrong when poseurs like Seeby Woodhouse are involved.
February 16th, 2009 at 4:21 am
Helensphotogenicimposter: To answer (part of) your question in a purely technical manner (and without addressing the validity of the underlying theory of global warming), the arguement of farms automatically offsetting the “carbon” released by animals by the “carbon” adsorbed by the grass would definitely hold weight if the carbon was released and adsorbed in the same form (ie carbon dioxide). Unfortunately much of the gasses that animals (especially cows) release is methane, which is roughly an order of magnitude more effective at trapping heat per a given concentration as carbon dioxide. However this aspect tends to be obscured by the use of the generic term “carbon” by the bureaucrats instead of specifiying the specific carbon containing greenhouse gas involved.
To answer another part of your question, I think it is fair to say the last government lacked common sense – and not bother applying the scientific prefix.
February 16th, 2009 at 9:14 am
Humans control the climate. Yeah Right!
February 16th, 2009 at 11:14 am
To answer paradigm, the methane gas concept is not as clear cut as you say. Methane and carbon dioxide exist in the atmosphere in an equilibrium. In the atmosphere, even methane denatures to carbon dioxide if given time. They say the half life is 7 years. If you were to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. as plants on earth do (such as grass in paddocks of grazing ruminents) Methane would would be out of equilibrium, therefore more would convert to CO2.
So what does this mean for global warming? If the number of belching ruminents (grazing animals like cows and sheep) were to remain the same, the effect of agriculture on methane gas accumulation in the atmosphere would be zero.
A simple scientific concept that all in parliament seemed to overlook. That is what is worrying when they try to introduce legislation about any scientific process.
February 16th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Helensphotogenicimposter, I do not believe methane is in chemical equilibrium in the atmosphere. The decomposition of methane to water and carbon dioxide is strongly exothermic (as one expects for a classical combustion-style reaction), and I do not see any strong entropic advantage to having methane which could counteract this. Thus while it may be possible to establish an equilibrium between CH4, O2 and CO2, H2O, the amount of CH4 present would be utterly infintesimal, particularly in an O2 rich system like the earth’s atmosphere. Rather I believe CH4 is in equilibrium in the atmosphere in as much as its rate of decomposition in the atmosphere is roughly equal to the rate at which more CH4 is introduced from man made and natural sources, and not due to some reverse reaction where CO2 converts back to CH4. If you have any authorative literature on the subject, however, I am prepared to concede my position.
February 16th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
“The decomposition of methane to water and carbon dioxide is strongly exothermic (as one expects for a classical combustion-style reaction), and I do not see any strong entropic advantage to having methane which could counteract this.”
You are correct in this statement. Yet you forget the other end of the carbon cycle. The conversion of CO2 to glucose by photosynthesis is endothermic. Hence again pure agriculture is merely a cycle. Energy in = energy out. To be consistent as much of the product is exported, much of the carbon and heat product released occurs overseas.
What is concerning though is the amount of industrial CO2 released into the atmosphere and the level of deforestation in the world which upsets the equilibrium. I have never disagreed with this concept. I just think it is false to make agriculture pay for it. Furthermore, importers of New Zealand agricultural product will be subsidised for some of their carbon emissions by New Zealanders. I just do not think this is fair!
If CH4 just accumulated, well consider that cows and sheep have roamed the earth for millions of years, long before coal and oil was consumed in any vast quantities. I cannot believe the amount of methane accumulated from agriculture in the last 100 years far exceeds that which accumulated over the millenia in which cows, sheep and related species have been in existance. Do you know of strong literature to suggest otherwise?
February 16th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Historical (ie from 1800 back about 650,00 years) show CH4 concentrations varied btween 400 and 700 ppb. In 2005, they were 1,770 ppb.
About 25% of current CH4 emissions come from burning of fossil fuels. The rest comes from biogenic sources, which include wetlands rice agruiculture, ruminant animals, landfills etc.
Roughly 60% of current emissions are anthropogenic.
February 16th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
PS: source is IPCC, AR4, WG1, pp 539 ff.
February 16th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Helensphotogenicimposter says:
“If CH4 just accumulated, well consider that cows and sheep have roamed the earth for millions of years, long before coal and oil was consumed in any vast quantities. I cannot believe the amount of methane accumulated from agriculture in the last 100 years far exceeds that which accumulated over the millenia in which cows, sheep and related species have been in existance. Do you know of strong literature to suggest otherwise?”
Helensphotogenicimposter, I never said CH4 was just accumulated in the atmosphere without decomposing. I merely said it was not in chemical equilibrium CO2. That means that the decomposition reaction:
CH4 + 2O2 -> CO2 +2H2O
Can be effectively thought of as going to completion, and the reverse reaction:
CO2 +2H2O -> CH4 + 2O2
is such a rare event that we can ignore it. As such the concentration of CO2 already present is essentially irrelevant to the extent of methane decomposition.
February 16th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Helensphotogenicimposter – cows and sheep have roamed the earth for millions of years…hmmm, well, in a very localised sort of way… nevertheless, you seem to have overlooked … the trees! Therein lies the difference!
February 16th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Methane does not exist in equilibrium with CO2 – that’s bad science – paradigm is dead right.
However, the calculations used in greenhouse “effect” for CH4 from agicultural contribution are wrong – as if with a 1/2 life of ~ 9 years in the atmosphere, having a cow for 30+ years means your cow is close to equilibrium (in terms of CH4 contribution) to the atmosphere (for the silly – we can always replace the cow so we don’t need a really old cow) ie it produces CH4 about as fast as it decays.
So if I’ve been a farmer for 30 years and had a herd of 100 cows I don’t get recgnition of that fact – but who cares AGW is political and not science.
February 16th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Helen – cows and sheep have roamed the earth for millions of years !!! I think you slept during biology classes
February 17th, 2009 at 2:13 am
Thank you for the above responses to may questions.
Greenfly, I did mention my concerns regarding deforestation when discussing CO2 in the atmosphere. New Zealand is just as gulity here as well. You only have to go to Stewart Island to understand what NZ should have looked like. There is nothing like the bush coming right up to the beach, seeing yellow eye penguins walk back and forth in front of you and Kiwis scampering back into the trees. We have offset that a little by draining 90% of our wetlands
Paradigm, I think you and I have a lot of common ground. It has been more than 14 years since I took a Chemsitry class, although I have studies a lot of bichemistry since so I will make one last comment about chemical equilibriums. Again considering the chemical equation:
CH4 + 2O2 = CO2 + 2H20
Just because this equation is exponentially more likely to move in one direction than the other, it does not mean it is not in an equilibrium. Look at it another way, remove CO2, the rate of CH4 decomposition wll increase. Increase CO2, the rate of CH4 decomposition will slow down.
Georgyboy helps to demonstrate that human activity has increased methane emissions, but misses my point. Methane from agriculture, and wetland horticulture for that matter, is a cycle. Methane decomposes. the CO2 gets removed from the atmosphere. Keep the level of these activities the same, the net effect to global warming is nil. It is the Methane from fossil fuels and landfills that is the problem as these activities have limited ability to remove carbon from the atmosphere.
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Turns out that this “delay”, which was to refer the scheme to a lower house Finance committee for review, didn’t last all that long. The whole idea seems to have been a failed attempt at political management from Swann. The current status of the scheme is just incredibly murky with push back from all sides. I’ve made some comments here
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:34 pm
“cows and sheep have roamed the earth for millions of years !!!”
Where did the cows and sheep come from?
They don’t seem to be in the evolutionary chain. They just appeared.
I don’t think so.