Mangled Thoughts

Having summarised the failure of the Right to shred the Greens on the count of bogus science, Pt II attends their failure on the economics side of the fraud. It wasn’t simply a failure in economic argument, debate and polemics.

Liberal MPs, the IPA, and their link, David Kemp.

12 years in Federal Office, preceded by a decade in one of the crucial States in the Federation Australia, Victoria under Kennett, and the Right did not merely fail miserably to shred the Greens, their Great Lie, and bulldoze the bureaucracies raised to enforce the Greens’ totalitarian aims. No, they imposed an extensive range of Green’s demands and helped the Green’s promote their great lie. As for Kennett and McNamarra they almost beat the ‘watermelon red’ not Liberal former ministers, David Kemp, Malcolm Turnbull and Ian Campbell on such matters as imposing the ethanol fraud. They also rammed down a mountain of capital destroying, absolutist regulations to enforce compliance to the Greens’ cult of death.

The IPA, as advisers to Kennett and Howard Cabinets, demonstrated a contradiction. The IPA’s self-proclaimed forte is fighting regulation. They have over the decades consistently failed. Why? It requires sound economic theory to fight regulation. They are as defective in economics as are the CIS and the HR Nicholls Society. During the Howard years, they did not fight the economic measures of their rightwing pals in the Cabinet, to effect ruination of Australians to “stop global warming” and “protect the environment”.

The IPA’s efforts were given to working out the ‘right’ measures to ram down on Australians. There is a “governance issue” hanging over them. David Kemp and family owns the IPA. As “Minister for the Environment”, he was not merely “watermelon red”. Kemp was a zealot who foamed at the mouth when anyone dared to politely say, “it is all bunk, Minister”.

So, before further ado, we have already three reasons why the Right has served the Greens and their treacherous Leftist allies:

1. Idle “Liberal” Ministers, illiterate in science and economics. Their performance demonstrated these defects. The IPA blamed Howard for the defeat of the Liberal Party; they are free with the truth. Howard by instinct is genuinely Liberal, and he was only one Minister in a Cabinet stuffed with the likes of Minchin, Kemp, Turnbull and a rather long list of the same types.

2. Incompetent advisers in economics and science, who ran up the flag yellow. The IPA even spat on scientists who offered to do the work required, pro bono.

Cowardice, ah yes… While the likes of David Kemp and his IPA spat on genuine Liberals, scientists and economists, they and their chums in Cabinet, and the CIS trembled before the Left dominated press. Chinese acquaintances, who lived under the worst horrors of the Communist regime of China under Mao, are puzzled as to why these ‘freedom fighting” heroes of the Right are terrified of Lefitsts. These venerable acquaintances know all about starvation due to the sort of measures Kemp, Turnbull, and Campbell put in place, and Rudd is about to intensify and multiply.

3. Contradiction. It seems to have escaped the Right’s notice the measures Kemp is guilty of imposing are incipiently totalitarian. The IPA and CIS claim to fight for market freedom and liberty, yet supported that. In Parliament last week, Kevin Rudd set out a progrom that is not merely confined to capital destroying carbon taxation. The measures are extensive, and the force is appalling; they are set out below in “Continued”.

The performance of Rightwing MPs and the IPA has been nothing less than betrayal of their duties to the Howard Cabinet, the Liberal Party, and Australians. Thus, it is fitting who remains are: blubbering Brendan Nelson; polar ice-cap Helen Kroger; Nick “Howard did us in” Minchin; Malcolm “I’m only a poor little wealthy brat like Peter Garrett” Turnbull, who demands Government impose killer price rises on energy and other raw materials.

Turnbull: Shadow Treasurer, thirsts to be Prime Minister, and El Presidente Le Respublico Los Bananos Australiano. Instead, he should be slung out of Parliament and replaced with a genuine Liberal. Then, he and David Kemp must be booted out of the Liberal Party. They can join their fellow travellers, the Greens.

CIS gives master class on carbon taxes

The failures and cowardice of the IPA pales before the actions of the CIS. The CIS has made it plain, they fully support the aim of the Greens: economically raze Australians. Their position paper demanding imposition of carbon taxes demonstrates their capitulation to the Left. The ALP has used the very same arguments the CIS asserts as the way to impose the measures “costlessly”. Even funnier, last week, they stood up in Parliament and used another false proposition put by the CIS, John Humphreys, and their ‘defenders:

Income transfers can compensate modest income earners. Rudd’s pals did say in Parliament, they are studying, by how much, but have established they will have to be large.

There are two problems:

1.Transfers can be made only by impoverishing many others – robbing Peter to pay Paul, then Paul to pay Dixie. This from defenders of freedom and free markets!

2.Mr Jackson demonstrated in devastating papers, carbon taxes destroys capital . I laid out a large number of major cases which drove home this very impact.

Needless to say, there is no income to be seized and ‘redistributed’ when the generator of income, capital, is smashed. The CIS’ rebuttal was a fit of hysteria and calling Jackson, then Strider, Prodos, and others liars. They did not refute Jackson’s economic analysis. They had no rebuttal, so they conducted themselves as Leftist Quiggin, his fan club of juveniles do, and their chums in the media do, slimed those who have every good reason to reject their claims.

(Professor Sinclair Davidson joined in. He pretends to a thorough understanding of Mises and Hayek, as some of his ‘knowing” comments in some of his usual tripe in the IPA Review attests. His papers show he’s a blank on the Austrian school. Yet, he had the hide to smear Jackson, who is a distinguished exponent of Austrian economics. Why attempt to refute Jackson, when abuse will do. Professor Sinclair Davidson is a bloody disgrace.)

Notice the moral force of the actions of the CIS. They don’t give a stuff about the impact of carbon taxes on Australians. ‘Callous’, is a litote. Only the Greens, Kevin Rudd, Peter Garrett, and the leftist liars in the media are cheering them on. We can tell, because Rudd and his Cabinet of “Brown Pantalooned Morons” are using the very same arguments to not only excuse these devastating, totalitarian measures. Rudd and co are using them as the rationale for a wondrous expansion of ‘plans’ worthy of the defunct Soviet regime.

Here’s the rub, the CIS, as the IPA, ignored a mountain of evidence that had accumulated over a decade before their decision to support what the Stalinist Greens demand. Moreover, they ignored one horrific measure already in force in Australia, the food destroying fraud of ethanol production. Since, however, they hold carbon taxation is costless, they will no doubt publish a paper explaining this, and they will have their gun, John Humphreys write it. To help the CIS explain ‘costless carbon taxation’, we supply them a list of economic reading material they need to include (below). The material fully demonstrates why it can be so wonderful.

Conclusion of this article

There it is, ladies and gentleman, the Right has served the treacherous Left and their Stalinist pals in the Greens on two counts, science and economics. Oh, I am not saying they did so deliberately. They have done so because of their congenital defects.

It irks the IPA and the CIS that their mates are not in office, for they have been cut off the taxpayer kept gravy train. Rudd and Co have to funnel ‘transfers’ into Leftist ‘thunk and tanks’. Oh Rudd is, presumably, grateful to the CIS, and, hey, the CIS need not tighten their belts as much as the IPA has had to do (seems like the reason why they railed against Howard). The Peking based Peony Company can shovel a few millions their way via Mr. Yates in gratitude for all the fine work they did in encouraging Rudd to smash Australians into the ground.

Recommended reading

1. Helen “Fidelia Castro” Clarke has wrought devestation through her Green measures, having, for example, already razed forestry based production. Rodney Hide, began as a bureaucrat central planner (the orginal name for socialism) until the penny dropped, it issues only in misery.

New Zealand’s Right, who constitute the New Zealand National Party, detests Hide as much as Helen “Fidelia Castroina” Clarke and the New Zealand Labour Party do. Hide has tracked the devestation wrought by “Castroina” over the years on his site. However, “Fidelia” is about to blitz the trail for ‘costless’ carbon taxes:

Kiwi Climatology, WALL STREET JOURNAL ASIA, May 13, 2008. Kiwi farmers must be waiting in eager anticipation for the forthcoming CIS article.

Global-warming alarmists tend to understate the true costs of cutting greenhouse gas emissions. So give credit to New Zealanders, who seem poised to give the rest of us a real-life illustration of those costs…

2. Here is a “Christian gentleman”, who knows how costless carbon taxation is. We can tell, he is making a fortune out of it, in the form of ethanol,

Khosla’s Conspiracy, May 20, 2008, WSJ.

3. Oh, drat, here is entrepeneur extroadinaire, Mark Vaile, at it,

Government MPs plan to rip millions off in subsidies for ethanol producers, Brookesnews, 2005.

4. This cannot possibly be due to carbon taxes, the CIS and Professor Sinclair Davidson say so, so there:

The Biofuels Backlash May 7, 2008;

Even the environmental left, which pushed ethanol for decades as an alternative to gasoline, is coming clean. Lester Brown, one of the original eco-Apostles, wrote in the Washington Post that “it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that food-to-fuel mandates have failed.” We knew for sure the tide had turned when Time magazine’s recent cover story, “The Clean Energy Myth,” described how turning crops into fuel increases both food prices…

To create just one gallon of fuel, ethanol slurps up 1,700 gallons of water, according to Cornell’s David Pimentel, and 51 cents of tax credits. And it still can’t compete against oil without a protective 54-cents-per-gallon tariff on imports and a federal mandate that forces it into our gas tanks. The record 30 million acres the U.S. will devote to ethanol production this year will consume almost a third of America’s corn crop while yielding fuel amounting to less than 3% of petroleum consumption.

5. I suppose the uppity will indulge this, wounding the sensitivies of the Right, a fracas,

Food Fracas, By Lene Johansen,5/9/2008 American Prowler

Let’s not mention food riots. No, regulation has crippled food production and investment in it, before the impact of carbon taxes is factored in.

6. Surely, to follow the CIS, John Humphreys and Professor Sinclair Davidson, anyone who can write, “cap and trade is folly”, is either a clown or a liar…there’s one born every few seconds:

Cap-And-Trade Folly, Investor’s Business Daily, May 15, 2008. The conclusion must be describing Australia’s Right - no, just clowning around:

All this economic wreckage done in the name of reducing environmentally benign greenhouse gases by men who should know better — and likely do. But they have politics to think about, as well as invitations to Georgetown cocktail parties that probably are not being sent to GOP Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, who in his skepticism of global warming is performing a valuable public service.

7. CIS certainly has weight of numbers agreeing with their position:

The Biofuel Dilemma, By Ben Lieberman, The Heritage Foundation

Lieberman argues carbon taxes have proved successfully costless and have accomplished much of what the Green’s, the CIS, David Kemp, Malcolm Turnbull, Peter Garrett, and Kevin Rudd seek. Therefore, they can be responsibly rescinded now, before millions more around the world die from so much joy.

Oh, that is enough material for the CIS to digest, for the present. We shall supply them with fresh material I have to hand in another item.

Yes, Sir, I am looking forward to that CIS - Humphreys follow up paper. Better yet, it can be a joint paper, Humphreys and Professor Sinclair Davidson. Why don’t they go for the trifecta - a Humphreys-Professor Sinclair Davidson-Chris Berg joint paper, in which they will re-assert the Greens’ Great Lie is all true and why; and thus Carbon taxes are necessary, and why they are costless. It shall be a thrilling read, I can’t wait.

Rudd’s grand Soviet Era style planning:

Rudd has declared carbon taxes will also apply to cattle and sheep. It is not only carbon taxes he is about to impose. Moreover, his additional plans do entail extensive coercive measures. Read these additional shocking plans in, “Continued”. Oh, it does contain good news, for those spivs about town, Ron Walker and Hugh Morgan, who suppport carbon taxes because they want to steal billions per annum from taxpayers, courtesy of Rudd, via a ‘nuclear power plant’. It is itemised in Rudd’s Soviet style Plans, but listed as still under “Inquiry” - Rudd’s favourite expression to cover thuggery.

Source, Hansard, Federal Parliament, Senate:

Energy Efficiency
(Question No. 342)
Senator Allison
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 4 March 2008:
With reference to the recommendations on energy efficiency contained in the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) review of
Australia’s energy market and policies, Energy Policies of IEA Countries—Australia – 2005:
(1) What plans are in place to address these recommendations.
(2) What level of abatement has the National Framework for Energy Efficiency (NFEE) programs achieved to date.
(3) Given the statements in the January/February 2008 edition of the Clean Energy Council’s magazine, EcoGeneration, that
the ‘NFEE process has been hamstrung by a combination of inter-jurisdictional disputes and rivalries, a lack of senior
ministerial interest, and active resistance from vested interests and sections of the bureaucracy’ and that the NFEE process
is failing on implementation, what actions are being undertaken to progress the NFEE implementation program (for
example, increased resource levels, independent advice, improving cooperation between jurisdictions).
Senator Carr—The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable
senator’s question is as follows:
(1) The National Framework on Energy Efficiency (NFEE) is Australia’s primary policy mechanism to nationally improve
energy efficiency. Decisions on NFEE proposals are made by the Ministerial Council on Energy (MCE). The recommendations
of the International Energy Agency relating to energy efficiency are taken into account when developing Austra
lian policy. The new Energy Efficiency Sub-Group of the Council of Australian Governments Climate Change and Water
Working Group is also investigating energy efficiency issues.
(2) The abatement, energy and financial savings goals of NFEE are outlined in table 1. The three measures in the right hand
column are the Minimum Energy Performance Standards for appliances and equipment, the Energy Efficiency Opportunities
program and commercial and residential building code regulation programs.
Table 1: Summary projected impacts of NFEE Stage 1 measures in 2015
Impact Announced in 2004 MCE Communiqué
Projected impact of three NFEE
Stage 1 measures
GDP benefits ($m/annum) 400 380
Greenhouse gas benefits
(Mt CO
2-e /annum)
3.6 7.8
Energy savings (PJ/annum) 50 42
(3) On 13 December 2007, the MCE approved six projects for the second stage of NFEE:
•
Expanding and enhancing the minimum energy performance standards (MEPS);
•
Heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) high efficiency systems strategy;
•
Inefficient lighting phase-out strategy;
•
Data gathering and analysis project;
•
Development of measures for a national hot water strategy; and
•
Government leadership through Green Leases.
ATTACHMENT A
Text of EcoGeneration article (pages 6 and 8 of January/February 2008 issue)
Building an energy efficiency target and strategy for Australia
Clean Energy Council Policy and Research Manager, Tristan Edis, discusses the Clean Energy Council’s vision for a strategy
that will deliver on the Labor Government’s goal for Australia to be ‘at the forefront of OECD energy efficiency improvement’.
Australia lags the developed world in its energy efficiency performance. This is a product not only of low energy prices but
also government complacency. Australia’s domestic energy supplies of coal and gas are plentiful, secure and cheap. Unlike
Japan or Europe we are not reliant on others for our energy needs. The concept of being held hostage to another country for
our energy supplies is not something we have had to worry about. While we might be exposed to volatility in oil supplies, this
has not been a major economic concern because our energy exports also benefit when oil prices rise.
In combination these factors have created a spirit of complacency in Australian governments that energy efficiency doesn’t
matter. But the coming carbon constraint will bring a significant jolt. Australia has an abundance of low carbon fuels but they
will cost more than the carbon intensive fuels we have become accustomed to. No one likes rising prices, but the alternative of
unmitigated climate change is far worse. This is where energy efficiency policy becomes so important. Strong energy efficiency
policies can serve as a lubricant that will ease us along the path towards lower carbon energy supplies. By taking the
sting out of higher electricity prices, energy efficiency will enable us to implement tighter emission caps with much less political
and economic difficulties.
Right now there is no shortage of energy efficiency policies and programs at both Federal and State levels. The problem is not
with the number of programs and policies, so much as how they work together to deliver an overall outcome that effectively
and comprehensively taps the potential economic and environmental benefits available from energy efficiency.
Back in 2005 the International Energy Agency in its review of Australia’s energy market and policies recommended that the
Australian Government:
•
Develop a co-ordinated energy efficiency strategy that aims to realise all the benefits of improved efficiency such as
emissions mitigation, increased productivity and hence competitiveness, the advantages of delaying infrastructure investments
to gain technology advancements, and enhanced energy security.
•
Consider targets for improved energy efficiency on a national or sector specific basis and the appropriate means of
achieving them.
•
Address means of curbing peak electricity demand, for example through more cost-reflective pricing in meeting summer
peaks and/or more stringent efficiency standards for peak energy consumers such as air-conditioning.
•
Consolidate the different levels of energy efficiency programs to simplify them for users and/or improve their effectiveness.
Unfortunately these recommendations were never properly followed through, in spite of the joint State and Federal Government
National Framework on Energy Efficiency (NFEE) process. While some valuable work was undertaken through NFEE,
the process was hamstrung by a combination of inter-jurisdictional disputes and rivalries, a lack of senior ministerial interest,
and active resistance from vested interests and sections of the bureaucracy. With the election of a new government at a federal
level we now have a new opportunity to make progress. The Labor Party made a number of important and innovative election
commitments in the area of energy efficiency, from low interest loans to rebates and upgraded efficiency regulatory standards.
Yet the most important announcement came on election eve when Labor committed to a national energy efficiency goal that
“will put Australia on track to being at the forefront of Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD)
energy efficiency improvement.”
This announcement provides the overarching target that is an essential part of a long-term energy efficiency strategy that
should integrate and consolidate all the existing programs and policies and augment them where gaps exist. Dealing with the
behavioural and institutional barriers to energy efficiency is complicated and messy. It is unrealistic to think it can be resolved
with a single policy measure, but this cannot account for an assorted range of ad hoc, overlapping and disjointed energy efficiency
policies and programs. Energy efficiency policies and programs need to be guided by an overarching target and a program
for measurement and reporting against the target to inject accountability and direction.
The Clean Energy Council believes that the first step should be to convert this goal of “being at the forefront of OECD energy
efficiency improvement” into a numerical target that can be measured. This target should be informed by a detailed assessment
of the technological opportunities available in Australia to cost-effectively reduce energy wastage across all sectors of
the economy. From there a strategy needs to be developed that will detail the policies and programs required to drive the uptake
of these technological improvements and achieve the target.
This strategy must extend and expand its policy tool repertoire from what we’ve seen to date. Regulatory standards on buildings,
appliances and equipment need to take a step up from the objective of just removing worst practice. The move to drive
technological switching from standard incandescents to compact fluorescents provides a good example of where regulatory
standards need to go in this area. In addition, it is imperative that we start to address the energy use and misuse of the vast
majority of buildings that already exist and will continue to exist for many decades to come, rather than be reliant on building
standards that apply only to new buildings.
However regulatory standards cannot do the job alone. Standards are extraordinarily effective but they are blunt, often far too
slow in coming, and prone to strong political resistance. This means they need to be complemented with a broad-based financial
assistance program that will provide support according to the implied greenhouse abatement and avoided peak demand
benefits that a particular energy efficient product or service provides. This financial assistance program could wrap up the
existing variety of rebates and grants available and convert them into a consolidated fund that would be open to any product or
service that could demonstrate greenhouse and/or peak demand benefits. This should cover not only improvements in the residential
sector, but also commercial and possibly also industrial. The program could work according to pre-set qualification
benchmarks for generic goods like lighting equipment and refrigerators as well as tendering for more site-specific and customized
pieces of equipment and installations.
For the financial assistance program to be effective in driving lasting change and investment it must be long-term and secure.
Rebate programs running on three year budgets that are under threat each year by the expenditure review committee are a
recipe for a boom-bust industry. It means businesses will lack the confidence to invest long term in human and physical capital
essential to reduced costs and improved capabilities and products.
Lastly, we urgently need a concerted, national marketing and education campaign that will build understanding of and desire
for improved energy efficiency. The first cab off the rank must be a building energy efficiency rating label that is visable and
well promoted. The brand must be obvious to all who enter or pass by a building, not just those that end-up signing a tenancy
or purchase agreement. Social status is one of the most powerful drivers of human behaviour – far stronger than monetary
motives. It should be applied productively to address the most pressing problem facing humanity.
The Clean Energy Council, in conjunction with its members, intends to actively work with the new Federal Government to see
an energy efficiency strategy in place that will ‘put Australia at the forefront of OECD energy efficiency improvement’.
ATTACHMENT B
Energy efficiency recommendations from the 2005 IEA review of Australian energy policies
(1) Develop a co-ordinated energy efficiency strategy that aims to realise all the benefits of improved efficiency such as
emissions mitigation, increased productivity and hence competitiveness, the advantages of delaying infrastructure investments
to gain technology advancements, and enhanced energy security.
(2) Consider targets for improved energy efficiency on a national or sector specific basis and the appropriate means of
achieving them.
(3) Address means of curbing peak electricity demand, for example through more cost-reflective pricing in meeting summer
peaks and/or more stringent efficiency standards for peak energy consumers such as air-conditioning.
(4) Develop stronger means of improving energy efficiency in the transport sector, in particular through vehicle taxation and
fuel efficiency standards.
(5) Consolidate the different levels of energy efficiency programmes to simplify them for users and/or improve their effectiveness.
Energy Efficiency
(Question No. 343)
Senator Allison asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on
4 March 2008:
Given the statement of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts prior to the 2007 election that the Australian
Labor Party was committed to a national energy efficiency goal that ‘will put Australia on track to being at the forefront of
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) energy efficiency improvement’:
(1) Does this election commitment equate to a numerical energy efficiency or energy intensity target.
(2) How will this be achieved.
Senator Carr—The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable
senator’s question is as follows:
(1) and (2) The government does not have a specific numerical energy efficiency or energy intensity target. However, work
has recently commenced under the energy efficiency sub-group (EESG) of the new COAG climate change and water working
group. The EESG is tasked with developing options to accelerate uptake of energy efficiency measures. Within the development
of these options consideration will be given, where appropriate, to numerical targets.
ATTACHMENT A
Text of EcoGeneration article (pages 6 and 8 of January/February 2008 issue)
Building an energy efficiency target and strategy for Australia
Clean Energy Council Policy and Research Manager, Tristan Edis, discusses the Clean Energy Council’s vision for a strategy
that will deliver on the Labor Government’s goal for Australia to be ‘at the forefront of OECD energy efficiency improvement’.
Australia lags the developed world in its energy efficiency performance. This is a product not only of low energy prices but
also government complacency. Australia’s domestic energy supplies of coal and gas are plentiful, secure and cheap. Unlike
Japan or Europe we are not reliant on others for our energy needs. The concept of being held hostage to another country for
our energy supplies is not something we have had to worry about. While we might be exposed to volatility in oil supplies, this
has not been a major economic concern because our energy exports also benefit when oil prices rise.
In combination these factors have created a spirit of complacency in Australian governments that energy efficiency doesn’t
matter. But the coming carbon constraint will bring a significant jolt. Australia has an abundance of low carbon fuels but they
will cost more than the carbon intensive fuels we have become accustomed to. No one likes rising prices, but the alternative of
unmitigated climate change is far worse. This is where energy efficiency policy becomes so important. Strong energy efficiency
policies can serve as a lubricant that will ease us along the path towards lower carbon energy supplies. By taking the
sting out of higher electricity prices, energy efficiency will enable us to implement tighter emission caps with much less political
and economic difficulties.
Right now there is no shortage of energy efficiency policies and programs at both Federal and State levels. The problem is not
with the number of programs and policies, so much as how they work together to deliver an overall outcome that effectively
and comprehensively taps the potential economic and environmental benefits available from energy efficiency.
Back in 2005 the International Energy Agency in its review of Australia’s energy market and policies recommended that the
Australian Government:
•
Develop a co-ordinated energy efficiency strategy that aims to realise all the benefits of improved efficiency such as
emissions mitigation, increased productivity and hence competitiveness, the advantages of delaying infrastructure investments
to gain technology advancements, and enhanced energy security.
•
Consider targets for improved energy efficiency on a national or sector specific basis and the appropriate means of
achieving them.
•
Address means of curbing peak electricity demand, for example through more cost-reflective pricing in meeting summer
peaks and/or more stringent efficiency standards for peak energy consumers such as air-conditioning.
•
Consolidate the different levels of energy efficiency programs to simplify them for users and/or improve their effectiveness.
Unfortunately these recommendations were never properly followed through, in spite of the joint State and Federal Government
National Framework on Energy Efficiency (NFEE) process. While some valuable work was undertaken through NFEE,
the process was hamstrung by a combination of inter-jurisdictional disputes and rivalries, a lack of senior ministerial interest,
and active resistance from vested interests and sections of the bureaucracy. With the election of a new government at a federal
level we now have a new opportunity to make progress. The Labor Party made a number of important and innovative election
commitments in the area of energy efficiency, from low interest loans to rebates and upgraded efficiency regulatory standards.
Yet the most important announcement came on election eve when Labor committed to a national energy efficiency goal that
“will put Australia on track to being at the forefront of Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD)
energy efficiency improvement.”
This announcement provides the overarching target that is an essential part of a long-term energy efficiency strategy that
should integrate and consolidate all the existing programs and policies and augment them where gaps exist. Dealing with the
behavioural and institutional barriers to energy efficiency is complicated and messy. It is unrealistic to think it can be resolved
with a single policy measure, but this cannot account for an assorted range of ad hoc, overlapping and disjointed energy efficiency
policies and programs. Energy efficiency policies and programs need to be guided by an overarching target and a program
for measurement and reporting against the target to inject accountability and direction.
The Clean Energy Council believes that the first step should be to convert this goal of “being at the forefront of OECD energy
efficiency improvement” into a numerical target that can be measured. This target should be informed by a detailed assessment
of the technological opportunities available in Australia to cost-effectively reduce energy wastage across all sectors of
the economy. From there a strategy needs to be developed that will detail the policies and programs required to drive the uptake
of these technological improvements and achieve the target.
This strategy must extend and expand its policy tool repertoire from what we’ve seen to date. Regulatory standards on buildings,
appliances and equipment need to take a step up from the objective of just removing worst practice. The move to drive
technological switching from standard incandescents to compact fluorescents provides a good example of where regulatory
standards need to go in this area. In addition, it is imperative that we start to address the energy use and misuse of the vast
majority of buildings that already exist and will continue to exist for many decades to come, rather than be reliant on building
standards that apply only to new buildings.
However regulatory standards cannot do the job alone. Standards are extraordinarily effective but they are blunt, often far too
slow in coming, and prone to strong political resistance. This means they need to be complemented with a broad-based financial
assistance program that will provide support according to the implied greenhouse abatement and avoided peak demand
benefits that a particular energy efficient product or service provides. This financial assistance program could wrap up the
existing variety of rebates and grants available and convert them into a consolidated fund that would be open to any product or
service that could demonstrate greenhouse and/or peak demand benefits. This should cover not only improvements in the residential
sector, but also commercial and possibly also industrial. The program could work according to pre-set qualification
benchmarks for generic goods like lighting equipment and refrigerators as well as tendering for more site-specific and customized
pieces of equipment and installations.
For the financial assistance program to be effective in driving lasting change and investment it must be long-term and secure.
Rebate programs running on three year budgets that are under threat each year by the expenditure review committee are a
recipe for a boom-bust industry. It means businesses will lack the confidence to invest long term in human and physical capital
essential to reduced costs and improved capabilities and products.
Lastly, we urgently need a concerted, national marketing and education campaign that will build understanding of and desire
for improved energy efficiency. The first cab off the rank must be a building energy efficiency rating label that is visable and
well promoted. The brand must be obvious to all who enter or pass by a building, not just those that end-up signing a tenancy
or purchase agreement. Social status is one of the most powerful drivers of human behaviour – far stronger than monetary
motives. It should be applied productively to address the most pressing problem facing humanity.
The Clean Energy Council, in conjunction with its members, intends to actively work with the new Federal Government to see
an energy efficiency strategy in place that will ‘put Australia at the forefront of OECD energy efficiency improvement’.
ATTACHMENT B
OECD Energy Intensity by Country 2005
TPES/GDP (PPP)
Country (toe/’000 2000$ PPP)
Iceland
0.36
Canada
0.27
Slovak Republic
0.26
Czech Republic
0.25
Finland
0.23
Korea
0.22
United States
0.21
Australia
0.2
Poland
0.2
Belgium
0.19
Sweden
0.19
Hungary
0.18
Luxembourg
0.18
Mexico
0.18
New Zealand
0.18
Norway
0.18
Netherlands
0.17
France
0.16
Germany
0.16
Japan
0.15
Spain
0.15
Turkey
0.15
Austria
0.14
Portugal
0.14
United Kingdom
0.14
Denmark
0.12
Italy
0.12
Switzerland
0.12
Greece
0.11
Ireland
0.11
Explanation of Purchasing power parity (PPP)
Purchasing power parity (PPP) is a theory which states that the exchange rate between two countries should equal the ratio of
the two countries’ price level of a fixed basket of goods and services. When a country’s domestic price level is increasing (i.e.
a country experiences inflation), that country’s exchange rate must be depreciated in order to return to PPP.
ATTACHMENT C
International energy efficiency comparisons for a ‘standardised’ manufacturing sector
IEA findings – Australia’s manufacturing sector ‘standardised’ for structural differences
The IEA’s report, Energy Use in the New Millennium - Trends in IEA Countries, shows that energy efficiency savings for the
manufacturing sector between 1990 and 2004 for the IEA 19 nations
1 were estimated at 21 per cent. The rate of improvement,
however, was much lower than earlier decades. Over this period Australia reduced energy use per unit of manufacturing valueadded,
as did all 19 IEA member nations with the exception of Spain.
An analysis of note was an examination of ‘actual’ and ‘structural’ manufacturing energy intensities across 19 IEA member
nations. This analysis sought to answer the question: to what extent can differences in the energy intensity of manufacturing
industry among countries be explained by differences in their industrial structure? The IEA sought to answer this question by
calculating energy intensities for each nation using an assumed common industry structure for each country. The results for
Australia were considered striking by the IEA, who stated:
“…this approach shows that Australia’s very high energy intensity can be largely explained by the structure of its manufacturing
industry, which has a high share of very energy-intensive industries. If Australia’s industry had the same structure as the
average for the IEA19 countries – but kept its actual level of energy intensity in each sub-sector – the country’s aggregate
manufacturing energy intensity would be reduced by 47 per cent.”
The IEA 19 nations are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Japan, Netherlands,
New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, and the United States of America.
Uranium Mining and Nuclear Energy
(Question No. 345)
Senator Allison asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 4 March 2008:
With reference to the former Prime Minister’s announcement on 28 April 2007 of a nuclear strategy, detailed in the press release
‘Uranium mining and nuclear energy: a way forward for Australia’, which included four work plans to increase uranium
exports and to prepare for a potential expansion of the nuclear industry in Australia:
(1) Can an update on the work plans be provided.
(2) What budget allocation has been made.
(3) Will the work plans become public documents.
(4) What will be the mechanisms for public consideration.
(5) Given that, in 2006, the then Prime Minister and the then Minister for Foreign Affairs were talking up the prospects of a
uranium enrichment industry in Australia and referred to enrichment as ‘value adding’, claiming that future generations
would lament the fact that we did not add value to Australian uranium, just as current generations lament the fact that we
did not add value to Australian wool in the past, what are the Government’s plans, if any, in regards to uranium enrichment.
(6) Has the Australian Secret Intelligence Service received any advice on how our near neighbours, for example Indonesia,
would respond if the Government were to approve a uranium enrichment plant in Australia.
Senator Carr—The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable
senator’s question is as follows:
(1) The work plans have not been seen by our Government and will not be carried forward.
(2) There has been no budget allocation made for the work plans.
(3) The work plans were cabinet documents made by the previous Government and will not be made public.
(4) There are no mechanisms for public consideration as the work plans are not being carried forward by this Government.
(5) As we have stated previously, the Labor Government opposes the development of any uranium enrichment or nuclear
power industry in Australia.
(6) I am unaware of what advice may have been provided to the Australian Secret Intelligence Service.
Climate Change
(Question No. 346)
Senator Allison asked the Minister for Climate Change and Water, upon notice, on 4 March 2008:
With reference to the Tracking to the Kyoto Target 2006 report which indicated that Australia will exceed its Kyoto target of
108 per cent of 1990 level emissions by 2010 by 6 million tonnes and the Tracking to the Kyoto Target 2007 report which
includes new ‘with measures’ measures announced recently by the Government:
(1) Given that during additional estimates hearings of the Finance and Public Administration Committee in February 2008 it
was confirmed that the expansion of the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target will not occur until 2010 and that this may
lead to increased energy demand being met by fossil fuel generated electricity at the expense of renewable energy projects,
does the Government intend to meet Australia’s Kyoto target.
(2) What are the assumptions and the abatement levels attributed to the new ‘with measures’ measures.
Senator Wong—The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
(1) It is important to clarify an inaccuracy in the question that has been asked. There was no confirmation that the start date
“may lead to increased energy demand being met by fossil fuel generated electricity at the expense of renewable energy
projects”.
The Australian Government is committed to meetings its 108 per cent target under the Kyoto Protocol.
•
The Tracking to the Kyoto Target 2007 report released in February shows the policies of the Rudd Government have
helped put Australia on track to meet its 108 per cent target.
•
All sectors of the economy have contributed to Australia being projected to meet its target, not just the electricity
generation sector.
•
Investment decisions in the electricity generation sector are being made in the knowledge that the new Renewable
Energy Target is commencing in 2009 and the Emissions Trading System in 2010. These two measures will provide
strong incentives for investment in renewable energy projects.
•
The abatement estimate for the 20% Renewable Energy Target is 4.1 Mt CO2-e [megatonne of carbon dioxide
equivalent] higher per annum over the Kyoto period (2008-12) than the abatement estimate for the current Mandatory
Renewable Energy Target (MRET) and Victorian Renewable Energy Target (VRET) that was included in the
Projections for 2006. By 2020, abatement from the 20% Renewable Energy Target is projected to be 20.5 Mt CO2-e
higher.
•
Table 1 below provides additional information.
Table 1: Abatement estimates for renewable targets included in Tracking to the Kyoto Target 2006 and Tracking to the Kyoto
Target 2007 (Mt CO2-e)
Kyoto period average per annum (2008-12) 2020
Tracking to the Kyoto Target 2006
Mandatory Renewable Energy Target 6.2 6.1
Victorian Renewable Energy Target 0.2 1.9
Total 6.4 8.0
Tracking to the Kyoto Target 2007
20% RET 10.5 28.5
(2) Assumptions and abatement estimates for the Government’s new measures included in Tracking to the Kyoto Target 2007
are as follows:
Table 2: Abatement from new measures (Mt CO2-e)
Kyoto Period Average 2008-2012 2020
20% Renewable Energy Target 10.5 28.5
Phase-out of Electric Hot Water Heaters 0.1 2.5
Insulation Rebate for Rental Properties 0.1 0.2
Green Loans for Households 0.1 0.3
Enhancement of Government Energy Efficiency* 0.02 0.04
Sustainable Housing 0.03 1.3
Total abatement
1 10.9 32.8
Additional abatement over 2006 Tracking to Kyoto 4.1 24.8
* A whole of government taskforce - known as the Inter-Departmental Committee on Government Leadership in Sustainability
- will report to the Prime Minister in June on ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, waste, energy and water use in
Government operations, as well as the sustainable use of Commonwealth land.
20 Per Cent Renewable Energy Target
See response to question 1.
Phase-out of Electric Hot Water Heaters
This initiative aims to phase-out electric hot water heaters in new and existing homes with access to reticulated natural gas by
2010. This will be implemented through new Greenhouse and Energy Minimum Standards (GEMS) for hot water heaters. This
means:
•
by 2010, greenhouse-intensive electric hot water systems will no longer be installed in new homes or those with access to
reticulated natural gas; and
•
by 2012, electric hot water systems will be phased out as replacements in both new and existing homes.
Exemptions will be made based on tank size for smaller households where gas is unavailable, and where significant physical
changes would be required, such as blocks of flats.
Green Household Loans Initiative
This initiative provides low interest loans of up to $10,000 to assist up to 200,000 households install solar, water and energy
efficient products.
Insulation Rebate
The Low Emission Plan for Renters will provide a rebate of up to $500 to help landlords install energy efficient insulation in
300,000 rental homes.
Sustainable Housing
This initiative aims to deliver more sustainable housing by making new and existing homes more energy and water efficient. It
includes:
•
the harmonisation of building standards between States and Territories;
•
compulsory point-of-sale sustainability scorecards; and
•
encouraging voluntary point-of-lease sustainability scorecards.
Enhancements to Government Energy Efficiency
Proposed enhancements to Government energy efficiency operations include:
•
an increase in the current requirements for Commonwealth office buildings and leases from 4.5 star to 5 star Australian
Building Greenhouse Ratings (ABGR);
•
encourage all unnecessary lights in Government offices to be turned off at night and when not in use;
•
require audits and energy efficiency plans for all agencies with more than 100 staff;
•
ensure all appliances and equipment are the most efficient and cost effective; and
•
set an objective to power Parliament House and MP electoral offices with renewable and clean energy.
1
Some Government measures were not assessed because information was not available.
Greenhouse Emissions
(Question No. 347)
Senator Minchin asked the Minister for Climate Change and Water, upon notice, on 4 March 2008:
Given: (a) the Government’s in-principle greenhouse emissions targets, as outlined in their election policy, to achieve a 60 per
cent reduction below 2000 levels by 2050; (b) at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) in
Bali, Indonesia in December 2006, Australia stated it supported the in-principle science-based targets of 25 per cent to 40 per
cent reduction by 2020 for developed nations and at least 50 per cent reduction in global greenhouse pollution by 2050; and
(c) that a 33 per cent reduction over 12 years would involve all sectors at a cost of 5 per cent of gross domestic product (or in
current terms, $50 billion a year):
(1) (a) When will the Government adopt a target for 2020; and (b) how will this target be met.
(2) Given that Australia’s emissions are still increasing, relative to 1990 emissions, in what year will Australia’s greenhouse
emissions start to decrease, relative to 1990 levels.
(3) From what sectors will these reductions come.
Senator Wong—The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
(1) (a) The Government will provide a firm indication of the medium-term emissions trajectory for the scheme before the
end of the year.
(b) The target once set will be met by a range of policies including the emissions trading scheme.
(2) The emission trajectory will be designed to place Australia on a low emission path in a way that best manages the economic
impacts of transition, while assuring our ongoing economic prosperity. This trajectory will be informed by a range
of inputs including the Garnaut Climate Change Review and modelling being undertaken by the Australian Treasury.
(3) The pattern of emission reductions will depend on the final mix of policies adopted. With respect to emission reductions
driven by the emissions trading system, the way that decisions are made throughout the economy will change. Companies
that can easily reduce emissions will do so to avoid this cost, thereby freeing up permits for those companies who have
fewer opportunities to reduce their emissions.
Mandatory Renewable Energy Target
(Question No. 349)
Senator Allison asked the Minister for Climate Change and Water, upon notice, on 4 March 2008:
With reference to the statement, during additional estimates hearings of the Finance and Public Administration Committee on
22 February 2008, that the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target (MRET) will not be expanded before 2010 and given that: (a)
the MRET has been fully subscribed since 2006 and that there are approximately 7 million surplus Renewable Energy Certificates;
(b) in order to drive new investment, industry requires an increase on the 2008 MRET and progressive increases in the
MRET to 2020; (c) the renewable energy industry claims that delaying the expansion of the MRET will result in stalling investment;
and (d) in 2005, Australian Labor Party state governments agreed to roll in state-based schemes in the event of the
national target being expanded:
(1) In line with the Government’s election policy, what are the proposed annual MRETs from 2008 to 2020.
(2) What assessment and analysis has been undertaken on the impacts to the renewable energy industry of expanding the
MRET in 2008, compared to 2020.
(3) What analysis has been undertaken on the greenhouse impacts of delaying the expansion of the MRET to 2010.
Senator Wong—The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
(1) The target to be legislated for 2020 is 45,000 gigawatt-hours. The profile of annual targets before and after 2020 will be
set through the design process now underway in cooperation with states and territories through the Working Group on
Climate Change and Water under the Council of Australian Governments.
(2) To address the issue of investment uncertainty the Government has set a challenging and responsible timeline to complete
design of the expanded national renewable energy target scheme by September 2008 and to put required legislation in
place during early to mid 2009. The Government has also committed to allowing all renewable energy projects accredited
under existing state target schemes to be eligible under the national scheme.
(3) Implementation of the national expanded scheme is not being delayed. The timeframe outlined in my response to (2)
above, is the earliest feasible timeframe, given the time required for careful design considerations and development and
passage of legislation.
Climate Change
(Question No. 350)
Senator Allison asked the Minister for Climate Change and Water, upon notice, on 4 March 2008:
Given that: (a) the Government has announced that an emissions trading scheme (ETS) will be implemented by 2010; (b)
there is an increased trend in individuals undertaking voluntary action to reduce their greenhouse impacts and that, in the absence
of quantification or regulation, these voluntary actions will result in individuals subsidising liable ETS participants to
meet the pollution reduction targets; (c) currently Kyoto Gold Standard is the only verified standard of emission reduction; (d)
the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has announced that it is targeting environmental market offers,
such as offsets, notwithstanding its claims that the offset market is unregulated and can not be quantified; (e) in the absence
of this regulation, only investment in overseas Kyoto Gold Standard projects will result in guaranteed global greenhouse
gas emissions reductions; and (f) without regulation and quantification of voluntary action, the liable polluters cap under an
ETS can not be adjusted by the level of the voluntary action:
(1) What plans are in progress to separate, regulate and quantify voluntary action markets, such as offsets, and to quantify
impacts so that the ETS cap can be adjusted.
(2) What plans are there to introduce consumer protection through regulating offset markets.
Senator Wong—The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
(1) The Australian Government recognises the importance of supporting the credibility and integrity of Australia’s growing
voluntary carbon market and has committed to the establishment of a national offsets standard by 31 December 2008.
This commitment includes setting minimum standards for the generation, verification and retirement of offset credits.
•
The Government’s Greenhouse Friendly program currently sets a defacto standard for offset and carbon neutral calculation
that is well respected both domestically and internationally.
•
Experiences gained through Greenhouse Friendly, as well as lessons learnt from other domestic and international
programs, will feed into the development of the national standard.
•
Progress on the standard will be dependent on future policy decisions made in relation to emissions trading scheme
design particularly scheme coverage.
•
We have set a target of reducing our emissions by 60 per cent by 2050 on 2000 levels.
•
The Government will set a mid-term target drawing on the Garnaut Review and other modelling.
•
Scheme caps will be designed to place Australia on a low emissions path in a way that best manages the economic
costs of transition and provides incentives to develop and invest in low-emission technologies.
(2) Protecting the public from misleading claims is important and this is the focus of the work being undertaken by the Australian
Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC).
•
Delivery of a national standard on offsets and carbon neutrality by December 2008 will provide further clarity and
transparency within the Australian voluntary carbon market.
Renewable Energy Technologies
(Question No. 351)
Senator Allison asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, upon
4 March 2008:
With reference to the consultancy commissioned under the Asia Pacific Partnership (APP) on Clean Development and Climate
by the department with the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), ‘Costs and Diffusion Barriers to Deployment of Low
Emission Technologies for APP’ and given that:
(a) EPRI have stated in the terms of reference that it will only consider wind and solar thermal as part of the large-scale renewable
energy technologies;
(b) of the solar thermal technologies under consideration, only troughs and towers are being considered as these are the
dominant solar thermal technologies used in the United States of America;
(c) the Australian solar thermal technologies of Big Dish and Linear Fresnel are being specifically excluded, as are geothermal
and large-scale photovoltaic technology (like solar systems); and
(d) EPRI has also stated that it will only use performance and cost data which is in the public domain, which excludes some
Australian developing renewable energy technologies, some of which have received Government funding:
(1) What are the low emissions technologies being considered under the consultancy.
(2) Why are the Australian technologies listed above being excluded from consideration.
(3) Is nuclear power being considered.
Senator Carr—The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable
senator’s question:
(1) The low emission technologies being considered under this APP project conducted by EPRI on the ‘Costs and Diffusion
Barriers to Deployment of Low Emission Technologies for APP’ are:
•
Clean Coal:
•
Oxy-combustion Super Critical Pulverised Coal (SCPC), (black coal only);
•
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC), (will be analysed with and without CO2 capture technologies);
and
•
SCPC2.
•
Natural Gas Combined Cycle, (will be analysed with and without CO2 capture technologies);
•
Nuclear; and
•
Renewable Energy:
•
Wind Turbine;
•
Solar Tower;
•
Parabolic Trough;
•
Hot Dry Rocks (Geothermal); and
•
Biomass
(2) Technologies with insufficient publicly available data such as Big Dish, Solar Fresnel and Concentrating PV technologies
are not being considered to ensure the transparency of the analysis and underlining assumptions.
(3) Nuclear power is considered being considered as part of this review as it is relevant to several APP Partner countries.
Water
(Question No. 352)
Senator Allison asked the Minister for Climate Change and Water, upon notice, on 4 March 2008:
What plans and progress have been made to implement the Government’s following election commitments to:
(a) invest $1 billion in urban desalination, water recycling and stormwater capture projects that are consistent with environmental
best practice and carbon neutral;
(b) invest $250 million towards modernising and repairing existing water systems and infrastructure in our towns and cities;
(c) establish a national target of recycling 30 per cent of wastewater by 2015;
(d) invest $250 million in direct rebates for rainwater tanks and greywater systems in households;
(e) help households with low-interest green loans of $10 000 so that they can more easily install water and energy efficient
products, such as rainwater tanks and solar hot water;
(f) work with industry, farmers and community groups to return water to rivers and conserve water in towns and cities; and
(g) bring forward $400 million in spending under the National Plan for Water Security to fast-track improvements in water
efficiency and to significantly invest in key water infrastructure projects and address over-allocation.
Senator Wong—The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
Implementation arrangements for Government policies are being considered in the context of the 2008-09 Budget.
On 26 February 2008, I launched the first round of water entitlement purchasing as part of the plan to restore the health of the
Murray Darling Basin.