Home > Environment, Oz Politics > Glass half-full department

Glass half-full department

February 22nd, 2008

The government’s response to the Garnaut report has been less than enthusiastic. Still, who would have thought, a year ago, that the news would be “government reaffirms target of 60 per cent cut in emissions” and that the only effective criticism would be from those saying the target is too soft.

The government is also saying that the review will be one input to policy. This isn’t all to do with the bad news in Garnaut: now that they are in office, departments like Treasury are pushing hard for a say in the process, rather than relying on an independent expert.

Categories: Environment, Oz Politics Tags:
  1. mugwump
    February 26th, 2008 at 01:05 | #1

    SJ Says:

    mugwump Says:

    “I am made painfully aware of my power use and government inefficiency every time I receive my electricity bill. Let’s not make it worse.”

    It’s possible that mugwump lives in one of the few US states where the state has retained control.

    It’s more likely that mugwump is clueless about who supplies his electricity (assuming that mugwump is telling the truth about living in the US).

    Actually, my comment was somewhat retrospective, referring to the bills I received until recently in South Australia, home of an ill-conceived electricity privatization by one government made necessary by the $20B losses sustained by the previous government when the State bank collapsed.

    My electricity bills in the US are half (per KWh) what they were in Adelaide, from a much more intelligently privatized state system (not California).

  2. mugwump
    February 26th, 2008 at 01:33 | #2

    It [rooftop solar generation] is also an asset which will rise in value with the cost of power.

    Soylent. if I have a choice between buying two houses, one with solar rooftop panels and one without, but otherwise equal, what do you think the price difference between the two will be determined by: the cost of installing the rooftop panels, or the (presumed higher) cost of the power they save?

  3. mugwump
    February 26th, 2008 at 01:40 | #3

    mugwump, how the hell is the retail grocery duopoly in Australia a union disaster?

    I said it was a “Government and union abetted disaster”. Meaning, the Australian retail grocery duopoly is a classic 1950s style big government/big business/big labor triumvirate that benefits all three players in terms of profit, control, and wages, but ultimately damages the consumer.

  4. Ian Gould
    February 26th, 2008 at 09:05 | #4

    Kevin Cos: It may come as a surprise to some but solar thermal and geothermal energy running costs are half the cost of the cheapest coal. The reasons why we are told that renewables is more expensive than fossil fuels is that the fossil fuel people often forget the sunk costs in their plants and the discount rate on capital is high.

    Kevin, they also “forget” the health costs associated with air pollution from power plants. But, hey, its all us suckers who pay for that.

  5. mugwump
    February 26th, 2008 at 13:34 | #5

    It may come as a surprise to some but solar thermal and geothermal energy running costs are half the cost of the cheapest coal. The reasons why we are told that renewables is more expensive than fossil fuels is that the fossil fuel people often forget the sunk costs in their plants and the discount rate on capital is high.

    This doesn’t make sense to me. If fossil fuel plants have twice the running cost of renewables, ignoring capital costs, and their capital costs are also higher (as you seem to be claiming), then it makes no difference if you ignore capital costs or not: renewables are cheaper either way.

Comment pages
1 2 3898
Comments are closed.