16. Major technological advances in low-cost solar and other non-carbon technologies. The pro-coal Green Paper Summary IGNORES the enormous advances made in already commercial solar energy technology, notably silicon-based photovoltaics (notably improved efficiency, sliver technology, balloon-based solar energy collection), CIGS and other non-silicon thin film photovoltaics (California, Switzerland) and Concentrated Solar Power or Solar Thermal – all of which yield power at a cost LESS than the “true cost” of coal-based power and in many cases approaching the 4-5 times lower current, heavily subsidized “market cost” of the coal-based power favoured by the Green Paper. Thus the new, large-scale, commercialized, Ausra Concentrated Solar Power (Solar Thermal) Compact Linear Fresnel (CLFR) system technology is already HALF the “true cost” of coal-based power with lower cost to come with economies of scale. Thus Ausra claims that it can generate electricity for 10 cents/kWh now, and for under 8 cents/kWh in 3 years’ time. It also claims that using Ausra’s current solar technologies, all U.S. electric power, day and night, can be generated using a land area smaller than 92 by 92 miles.

17. Top scientific and economist advice ignored. The Green Paper has clearly IGNORED detailed, expert, well-documented, scientific and economic representations about most of the above issues. It is extremely unfortunate and indeed very dangerous that the expert, public interest views of top economists and scientists on man-made climate change can be simply ignored and sidelined.

18. The CPRS selectively ignores two thirds of Australia-responsible GHG emissions. The Green Paper is absurdly INEQUITABLE in its selective targeting of sources of GHG pollution. Thus major areas excluded or effectively excluded from the CPRS are Agriculture (90 Mt CO2-e, 9.0% of Total Domestic and Exported GHG emissions), Forestry and Land Use (40 Mt, 4.0% of Total), Transport (tax and re-pay cent-for-cent; 80 Mt, 8.0%) and Coal Exports (426 Mt, 42.5% of 1002 Mt total). This goes against considerations of reason, equity and expert economic advice.

19. Green Paper counterproductive and inequitable in return of licence fees to polluters and consumers. The Green Paper is absurdly discriminatory and INEQUITABLE in its return of nearly all the GHG pollution licence fee monies to domestic and industry participants. Thus those FAVOURED by the Green Paper through subsidies (variously including “free permits”) are the “dirty” energy providers, “dirty power” users, “emission-intensive trade-exposed industries” (this could conceivably include the un-taxed coal and liquefied natural gas exporters!) and the poor and elderly (who are acutely discriminated against through resolute non-provision of cheap, renewable technologies that are much cheaper than the “true” cost of coal-based electricity). Unjustly, absurdly and counterproductively, those NOT receiving non-transport subsidies include “clean” industries (including renewable energy industries) and middle-to-higher income consumers (who are generally opposed to GHG pollution).

20. GP damaging to Older Australians. In its resolute commitment to fossil fuel-burning at all costs, the Green Paper is highly discriminatory towards older Australians in many ways, most notably because they are differentially threatened by elevated temperatures and because they are threatened by the impossibility of GDP growth in a continuing carbon-based economy. Thus retirement benefits require GDP growth, and carbon-based growth is no longer possible but cheap, non-carbon energy alternatives are already developed. For people who are self-funded retirees on superannuation schemes or people on government pensions it is necessary for GDP growth to compensate for outlays and inflation. However, the Climate Emergency requirement for urgent implementation of “negative CO2 emissions” means that the present carbon-based energy economy in which GDP is directly proportional to CO2 pollution has to STOP. However the solar energy hitting the earth each day is 10,000 times the energy currently used by man and can ALREADY be cheaply accessed at a cost much lower than the “true cost” of coal-based electricity.

21. CPRS details not known till after Submission deadline. The Green Paper is a fore-runner of more detailed document but more precise details from Treasury will apparently only be available in October i.e. AFTER the deadline for Submissions on the Green Paper has closed in September 2008!

22. Green Paper policies reverse sensible feed-back inhibition and feed-forward activation. The Green Paper Summary (p29) states that “The Government proposes to provide a limited amount of direct assistance to existing coal-fired electricity generators” but will effectively punish “non-carbon energy generators”, other “clean” industries and middle-to-higher income consumers who will bear the burden of increased costs due to the CPRS. This and other Green Paper pro-coal policies are mathematically absurd and CONTRARY to sensible models of “feed-back inhibition” in relation to undesirable outcomes (e.g. inhibition of GHG pollution by constraining polluters by the amount they pollute) and “feed-forward activation” to achieve desirable outcomes (e.g. promoting renewable and geothermal energy to achieve lowered GHG pollution, and lowered atmospheric CO2).

23. Green Paper favours “dirty energy” and fossil fuel exports over “clean energy”. While the urgently-needed installation of “clean energy” is left up to “market forces”, the Green Paper departs from a “level playing field”, “market forces” game by supporting “dirty energy” and coal exports on the one hand while imposing increased costs on the renewable energy industry and middle-to-higher-income anti-pollution consumers on the other.

24. Green Paper violates Rational Risk Management. Rational Risk Management (that, for example, has made aviation so safe) successively involves (a) getting accurate information; (b) scientific analysis (science involving the critical testing of potentially falsifiable hypotheses); and (c) systemic change to minimize risk. Unfortunately this protocol is typically perverted at all levels of society through (a) lying and incorrectness by omission and commission, censorship, intimidation, and propaganda; (b) anti-science spin involving the selective use of asserted facts to support a partisan position; and (c) blame and shame (which discourages requisite reportage) with typically no systemic change (which greatly increases the risk of adverse outcomes). A fundamental flaw of the Green Paper lies in its egregious departure from Rational Risk Management principles.

Pages: 1 2 3 4