Deal struck on renewable energy

Australia now has a target for 20% of power generation to come for renewables. Unfortunately the cost of this will not fall on industry but on the household consumer which, of course, makes it a highly inflationary decision, but it is progress and once again proves that if a government is willing to listen, the opposition may not be as far away as it thinks.

This unlocks tremendous potential for the renewable industries to forge ahead because there is now certainty in the market place and please note, yanks; this bill was passed without the pork so prevelent over there, proving that there are alternative forms of democracy that work

Quote:

---

Unfortunately the cost of this will not fall on industry but on the household consumer which, of course, makes it a highly inflationary decision,

---

That goes without saying . Anytime mandates happen or tax increases on industry they are passed on to the consumer. That is one of the reasons I think these things are generally ineffective.

Renewable energy is a worthy goal... but at what price ? If these sources were competitive then they would be able to compete in the market place without subsidization. And yes;I know my country is just as guilty as the rest in subsidies and price supports . But as a rule I oppose them .

Quote:

---

please note, yanks; this bill was passed without the pork so prevelent over there

---

However I see you are not totally immune to lobby pressures.

Quote:

---

Before today's deal, the Government had already bowed to some Coalition demands, agreeing to treat coal gas as "renewable", and separating the RET from the failed ETS.

---

This is good ;if you reduce your domestic consumption of coal it frees more of it for the export business. You get to export your 'carbon footprint '. It doesn't change a thing... but it makes you feel good .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Unfortunately the cost of this will not fall on industry but on the household consumer which, of course, makes it a highly inflationary decision, but it is progress and once again proves that if a government is willing to listen, the opposition may not be as far away as it thinks.

---

I'm not sure why you are calling this "progress".

If the idea is to create energy independence and lower the cost of energy, the idea is a BAD IDEA, because by your own admission, it is going to RAISE the cost of energy and place that burden on the consumers. It fails in its goal.

If the sole reason for the program is to "go green" for environmental reasons or to prevent the mythical "global warming", then is it worth the cost? Not if it's going to hurt consumers, individuals and businesses, as hard as your comments seem to be saying it will. Going green while killing the economy, and especially killing jobs, doesn't seem that progressive to me.

Again, I'm not against creating renewable or alternative energy sources. But such development has to be done within the larger context of how it will effect the whole economy and individual consumers. And according to what you wrote, the overall effect on the economy would be a net negative result. In which case I can't support the concept.

Elliot

In NY we already have a "buy back " program where the utility company is forced to purchase excess capacity generated by homeowners(net metering )at the utility's retail rate.

This works because capacity is expanded and the difference in cost is absorbed by the person generating the electricity and not the rest of the consumers.
http://www.oru.com/programsandservic...tmetering.html

Quote:

---

if a government is willing to listen

---

That's a pretty big if these days. One of our Democrats in power can't even stay off her cell phone while "listening" to her constituents.

Quote:

---

proving that there are alternative forms of democracy that work

---

Did we somehow imply that we had he only form that would work?

Hey speech did you hear her reasoning for being on the phone. She had to get the answer to a question that was asked at the meeting. Right doesn't she have aides for that!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spitvenom

Hey speech did you hear her reasoning for being on the phone. She had to get the answer to a question that was asked at the meeting. Right doesn't she have aides for that!

---

Doesn't that sort of make her look even worse? Has anyone suggested Congress start each session by singing "If I Only Had a Brain?"

First of all, I think the representative was Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee from Texas. It doesn't take much to make her look bad. She's pretty bad all by herself.

What does it say to people when your representative needs to call up somebody to find the answer to a question about the legislation she's supposedly there to represent because she doesn't really know what the legislation actually says.

And what does it say about the representative's respect for others when she gets on the phone with someone WHILE YOU ARE TALKING TO HER?

And finally, what does it say when the representative in question refuses to even acknowledge that her actions were disrespectful or apologize to the person she was rude to.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Doesn't that sort of make her look even worse? Has anyone suggested Congress start each session by singing "If I Only Had a Brain?"

---

Your are right. "If I only had a brain?" would be perfect. Have you seen the video of Barney Frank at the town hall basically tell a lady arguing with her was like arguing with a table. It was pretty funny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spitvenom

Your are right. "If I only had a brain?" would be perfect. Have you seen the video of Barney Frank at the town hall basically tell a lady arguing with her was like arguing with a table. It was pretty funny.

---

Just imagine Frank, Sheila Jackson Lee and Biden on the road together for health care reform...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

I'm not sure why you are calling this "progress".

If the idea is to create energy independence and lower the cost of energy, the idea is a BAD IDEA, because by your own admission, it is going to RAISE the cost of energy and place that burden on the consumers. It fails in its goal.

If the sole reason for the program is to "go green" for environmental reasons or to prevent the mythical "global warming", then is it worth the cost? Not if it's going to hurt consumers, individuals and businesses, as hard as your comments seem to be saying it will. Going green while killing the economy, and especially killing jobs, doesn't seem that progressive to me.

Again, I'm not against creating renewable or alternative energy sources. But such development has to be done within the larger context of how it will effect the whole economy and individual consumers. And according to what you wrote, the overall effect on the economy would be a net negative result. In which case I can't support the concept.

Elliot

---

Elliot
I think it is preferrable to building more coal fired power stations and without this bill the building of renewable generation was largely stalled. You should examine LNG, it is a cleaner energy source than coal and therefore its use by a major polluter, and if you have been to China you would know what I mean, can only benefit the Chinese people and the world as a whole

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

This is good ;if you reduce your domestic consumption of coal it frees more of it for the export business. You get to export your 'carbon footprint '. It doesn't change a thing.....but it makes you feel good .

---

Always the cynic, our domestic consumption of coal is static, what this does is keep new coal fired power stations off the drawing board. Coal will be exported because other economies want an energy source, personally I think it should be left in the ground and used for coal seam gas production, a cleaner alternative, but that solution requires a massive investment at the well head, and in ports and shipping

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

In NY we already have a "buy back " program where the utility company is forced to purchase excess capacity generated by homeowners(net metering )at the utility's retail rate.

This works because capacity is expanded and the difference in cost is absorbed by the person generating the electricty and not the rest of the consumers.
Net Metering

---

Tom we have gone a little further than this proposing buy back for all production will be at close to the cost of production for roof top solar, supporting the industry and making a rational economic/business decision possible for the consumer. The consumer pays for consumption at the standard rate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

I'm not sure why you are calling this "progress".

---

I'm calling it progress because the whole renewables industry here has been in a holding pattern awaiting for some certainty as to targets while the government and the opposition played politics around the ETS issue. BY separating the bills and allowing passage of the targets legislation the immediate future is now clear both for generators and investors. This is not the first renewable bill, there was one ten years ago but the whole thing stalled because the Howard government would not ratify Kyoto and commit to targets (following the lead of the US)

We still have the hurdle of a price on carbon, maybe this will be set by the market without an ETS and maybe it won't but now the ETS issue is free of the shorter term targets, we may be able to get more rational discussion and approach to the question of cap and trade

I agree with you that there are better and cleaner ways to utilize coal for energy production . Coal gassification or scrubbers on smoke stacks makes it much cleaner . Scrubbers remove the sulfer from the emissions ;which of course is the real dangerous gas emitted in the process... not carbon.

[QUOTE=tomder55;1932878]

However I see you are not totally immune to lobby pressures.

QUOTE]

Well, of course not, what politician is? But we have not honed it to the fine art available to the US legislature, and we seem to have a way of publicising the indescretions of various politicians and lobbists. Our system allows for many embarrassing questions to be asked on the floor of the house of the elected leader and his cronies (see our recent utegate affair) Utegate explained: This is not just about an email or a ute | Article | The Punch

Whereas yours shields them under the quise of doing important work

My favorite part of your system is your floor debates . Here is the US they complain about "civility " at Town Hall meetings and you have no problem with similar hooting ,shouting ,loud and rowdy in your face rhetoric by your MPs in debate . I say good for you . The pretext of comity and bipartisanship by our Congress... especially in the Senate is ridiculous .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

My favorite part of your system is your floor debates . Here is the US they complain about "civility " at Town Hall meetings and you have no problem with simular hooting ,shouting ,loud and rowdy in your face rhetoric by your MPs in debate . I say good for you . The pretext of comity and bipartisanship by our Congress ...especially in the Senate is rediculous .

---

Tom,

You ought to see some of the fistfights that have broken out in the Israeli Knesset. Political discourse taken to a high level of "in your face" rhetoric is practically a national pastime.

I personally loved it when the late, great right-winger, Meir Kahane, used to take such delight in his deliberate and well-thought-out insults of uber-liberal Shulamit Aloni.

Ahhhh... the good old days.

Elliot

Since we are going back a time in history there was the famous incident during the heat of the slavery debates when Congressman Preston Brooks beat Senator Charles Sumner to a pulp with a Gutta-percha wood cane until the cane broke.

Well OK... that did go over the line .

There was a time when it wasn't uncommon to see a duel between members of Congress or between political opponents. That's how Hamilton died... in a duel with his political enemy, Aaron Burr.

There are actually lines painted on the floor of the House. Members of the House who were debating with each other were not permitted to step over those lines, so that they would remain out of sword-reach of each other.

There are hooks on the coat hangers in coat rooms of both houses. The hooks are there for members of Congress to hang their swords. (These days they are used for umbrellas and such.) There were standing instructions for guards to keep members of Congress from bringing their swords onto the floors in order to avoid duels.

These are true facts.

Elliot