Renewable vs. non-renewable energy

A battle breaks out in Crikeyreaders over one reader's comment yesterday about non-renewable energy. Who's right? Plus, Crikey readers on the theatre of politics and Abbott's electorate.

Renewable vs. non-renewable energy

Steven McKiernan writes: Regarding the anti-renewable energy subsidy rant by Viv Forbes (comments, yesterday. Is this the same Viv Forbes who is executive director of Burton Coal Pty Ltd, Stanmore Coal Pty Ltd. at Dalrymple Bay, coal company Rockland Richfields Ltd. and the Carbon Sense Coalition?

Subsidy for his non-renewable fuels is good, subsidy for renewable energy is bad? [Editor’s note: We have contacted Viv Forbes to confirm or deny, but didn’t hear anything back before deadline. In the original email Viv Forbes did not disclose any such relationship with non-renewable fuel companies]

Nigel Brunel writes: Another person who needs to wake up and sniff the carbon. Firstly, climate change and man’s effect on it are peer-reviewed scientific facts. Unless you have some peer reviewed facts of your own –please excuse your rantings as being any of those. As stated before in this fine publication, a man is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.

The Wentworth Group of concerned scientists have stated the following: “If you increased the terrestrial carbon stock by 15% — you would remove the equivalent of all the carbon pollution emitted from fossil fuels since the beginning of the industrial revolution”.

If the world wants to end its dependence (addiction) to fossil fuels and create renewable sources of energy, it needs to inject a price of carbon into the economy.

Remember: we don’t inherit the planet from our grandparents — we borrow if from our grandchildren.

Do you want to be known as the generation who made the difference or the generation that took the difference?

David Byrnes writes: Viv Forbes talks about unsustainable industries that require government subsidies to stay afloat. Perhaps they would like to read up on the concept of privatising profits and socialising losses.

The pollution released during the production of manufacturing, mining, and fossil fuel energy generation is being subsidised itself. But the ones doing the subsidising aren’t the government, it is all of us who have to pay for the externalities through degradation of our health, instability of our climate and loss of natural ecosystems.

If those oh-so-apparently-sustainable polluting industries were forced to pay for the costs they currently dump on the environment, through an emissions trading scheme or carbon tax for example, then you will probably find the industries mentioned by Forbes becoming a lot more financially viable and have a lot less need for a subsidy to compete.

Roy Ramage writes: Viv Forbes raises some valid points but misses the mark with solar and wind power. The new word I think he is trying to grasp is sustainalism as opposed to sustainable.

Domestic solar panels can entirely eliminate electricity bills. Yesm domestic electricity users are still at the mercy of grid fluctuation but increasingly rely less on it. If and when storage catches up, then dependence will be even less. Meanwhile tariffs net and gross have seen PVP panels prices plummet by 30%. This will continue.

The coal lobby has successfully convinced Canberra that sequestration will work. It is a $155m mistake. People do hold conferences and yes there are different attitudes held by “warmists” and “coolists.” But what cannot be ignored is that the more domestic retrofitting of solar panels we have in regions and suburbs, the less demand there is on coal fired plant with resultant carbon savings.

Wind power will come into its own when combined with solar panels at deployed at the domestic level. That’s right — backyards, not millionaires’ hobby farms.

As soon as we can duplicate that domestic success with hybrid light poles, we may also start cutting down the horrendous bills we all pay for public lighting. So hang on because you can see sustainalism from here.

Peter Lunt writes: I’m not sure if I’m amused or frustrated by the seemingly one-eyed concepts of what is and what is not “sustainable”.

And although I agree with Viv Forbes first point (“A sustainable industry needs no government subsidies, mandates or exemptions”) I beg for a concrete example thereof, for it seems just a loose swipe at government, private industry, entrepenuers and investors who collectively are trying to shift our economy from the current equilibrium (or is that status quo?) to something, hopefully better, that is cleaner & renewable.

It was only a few months ago when Reuters reported “The Obama administration asked Congress for a second time to end some $36.5 billion [over 10 years] in subsidies for oil and gas companies, saying it would help fight global warming”. Likewise, the IMF (“Oil Subsidies: Costly and Rising”, Finance & Development, June 2010, Volume 47, Number 2) state “the global “tax-inclusive” consumer subsidy is projected to reach $740 billion by the end of 2010, equivalent to 1 percent of global gross domestic product”. Just imagine if US$740 billion was spent on battery technologies, wind & solar and better grid networks.

Stick to the big issues

David Havyatt writes: Re. “Crikey says: time to test your gag reflex” (yesterday) In your editorial you write “For the rest of us, there’s Crikey’s meatier coverage. If you’re looking for substance in the five weeks till August 21, stick with us.” After such promise though the newsletter was full of the same guff reporting the election as personality or a horse race. How about you do something novel — don’t report on poll results, or if you must only do a weekly summary not the daily guff we get from the spew-media? And how about you report on what policies mean — what their consequence would be — rather than the speculation about which constituency a policy is supposed to appeal to?

That is report the election as if there really was a contest of ideas here and not as if it is merely personalities or a horse race.

Can we here a little more about what the coalition actually would have done in the GFC — because at the moment they talk about debt and deficit as if the better outcome was a whole lot of unemployment? Can you put pressure on both to really give a climate change policy? Can you ask the coalition what their alternative to the NBN is?

Madeleine Woolley writes: Ordinarily I enjoy your daily commentary. Today’s was disappointing and I’m hopeful that we’ll get more intelligent info and opinions rather than repeats of today’s rehashing of useless media comments that have been lazy reporting and copy-cat opinions.

Keep your focus on the important election ahead and where Australia needs to be in the future Crikey, a real debate about the issues and policies that really matter. e.g. managing financial management and systems and super-rich people who wield extreme control of our country and future. Many of us are not interested in re-hashing personality traits and interpersonal plots. There are more important issues.

Abbott’s electorate

Steve Tucker writes: Living in Tony Abbott’s electorate the last person we’re likely to see during the campaign is the great man himself. He’ll be far too busy working on the marginals but on Day Two he did have a couple of the party faithful handing out Liberal leaflets at Manly wharf this morning.

The theatre of politics

Matthew Brennan writes: Re. Andrew Haughton (comments, yesterday) recheck his Shakespeare as I believe it was Duncan who was the king who got “done in” in Macbeth. But Kevin Rudd wasn’t stabbed to death with a pair of hairdresser’s scissors by Julia Gillard’s partner either.The man resigned without contesting the leadership on the 24th of June I believe and Gillard was elected leader and PM unopposed.

Kevin Rudd is still alive and will collect his superannuation when he finally leaves parliament. Possibly PM Gillard will need to keep a close watch for overnight re-forestation of the nature strip outside the Lodge, should she ever move in. The ghost of Wayne Swan may return to haunt the House of Representatives in Act III. Possibly the identity of Laurie Oakes’ “Deep Throat” will be revealed in the epilogue but for the time being could everybody get a grip?

Gavin Greenoak writes: A federal election has been called in Australia, and I wish that from now ‘til then I could look forward to an intelligently competitive dialogue with our country’s future clearly and firmly at stake and with the prize of my vote going to the most capable party, shining forth with the more inspiring sagacity, honour and veracity.

What I am going to get is third rate theatre, at my expense, and no refund, with the only cast in town, and no more at stake, than the outrageous exploitation of the body politic as the means, and not the end, to a result that will perpetuate but not justify its existence. Would that this were not so.

Someone fit for government will show an ability to take their own step back, and take a long hard look, at where we are, unconfined by their party’s interests, and understand that in which their responsibility consists, personally, nationally and internationally, and share such ideas which can only come from such a re-sourcing at the roots of power.

Commenting on the comments

Thomas Richman writes: Michael James’ (comments, yesterday) defence of “crumbs off the table” philanthropy reminds me of the man who was stabbed in the back with a 12 inch knife and was then told to thank his assailant after the latter pulled it out 6 inches.

Chris Virtue writes: To Chris Hunter (comments, yesterday): since when does a cane toad do anything “kind of cobra like”?

Mr Rabbit

Kylie Walker writes: I noticed Ms Gillard on the weekend repeatedly referred to her political opponent, Mr Rabbit…

Gillard goes Joanie

Jim Hanna writes: Re. “Hawke reveals the shocking truth — the ’80s were all about the B1/B2 affair” (yesterday, item 3). I enjoyed Bernard Keane’s closing line in his review of Hawke. “Just think, in 25 years’ time, we could be watching TV dramas featuring bedroom scenes between Julia Gillard and Craig Emerson.”

I nominate Christina Hendricks to play Julia.

Crap jobs

David Robinson writes: Over recent days I’ve been reflecting on jobs one would be embarrassed to have on one’s CV. These include: