The Oil Drum

This is a guest post from kiashu

Here in Australia Garnaut, an economist, is undertaking a study on what to do about Australia's greenhouse gas emissions. He has a website about it, and has released a draft report on it. He is in favour of strong action, though what he calls "strong action" and what you and I call "strong action" may be rather different things.

There are two basic ways people think of for dealing with emissions of unpleasant substances, aside from banning them entirely - tax them, and trade them. In taxing them we say, "emit as much as you like, but you have to pay for it." The theory is that people will reduce spending on things with that cost attached to them, thus reducing emissions of it, and that the revenue raised can be spent on dealing with the problems from it. In trading them we say, "you can only emit this much, and you must pay for it." So the government sets a target amount for emissions, creates permits for that much, and lets companies buy and sell these permits as they wish.

The government and Garnaut are in favour of an emissions trading scheme (ETS). I'm not. Remember the point of our schemes is to stop carbon emissions. We did not abolish outright slavery by setting up a slave market. That only encourages it. (Of course it's still not entirely abolished even today, but fewer people as a proportion of the world population are enslaved than ever before, and not because someone established a cap and trade system for slaves.)

This is a guest post by Alexis Ziegler. Alexis is a communitarian, builder, orchardist and environmental activist living in central Virginia. He is the author of a recently published book, Culture Change: Civil Liberty, Peak Oil, and the End of Empire. More information can be found at conev.org.

Abstract

The rapid expansion of biofuel production worldwide has paralleled a dramatic rise in food prices. The expansion of biofuels has been supported by a wide spectrum of people, from environmentalists looking for "sustainable" energy to conservatives wanting to reduce U.S. dependency on foreign oil. With food riots spreading, the U.S. remains committed to an expansion of biofuel.

Biofuels are part of a larger movement toward green capitalism, the idea that we can scale down our energy use through technologies that improve the efficiency of the consumer society. Biofuels are emblematic of the dark side of green capitalism, which is focused almost entirely on the well being of the global upper class. Biofuels are a form of nationalistic environmentalism that is creating a foundation on which more extreme nationalists will try to wed the racist tools of yesterday with a version of "sustainability" that will include the destruction of the global poor.

Real solutions are both impossibly difficult and simple. The cooperative societies in which most humans have always lived are capable of supporting a high standard of living with far less resources than the individualized, consumer society. Enlightened political leadership would be helpful, but we can create a sustainable society without it. Indeed, we have to.

The Rudd Government's first budget contained a number of green initiatives - subsidies for solar hot water and PV, incentives for landlords to insulate homes and more encouragement for rainwater tanks.

They also kept Howard's $500 million handout to our largest and most profitable industry, the coal industry, which might explain why Bob Brown said the "budget had nothing for renewable energy but was a boon for the coal industry". The Clean Energy Council was more enthusiastic, saying "Australia heads towards a clean energy future one budget at a time".

The budget also expects a surge in farm production and continuing growth in mineral exports.

Mr. or Madam President,

Vice President Dick Cheney once famously quipped "The American way of life is non-negotiable." I submit that while our next president might not be so brash in stating this, the root of our energy problems can be traced to this attitude. But, nature doesn't negotiate. It doesn't appear that any of the remaining presidential candidates understand the basis of the problems we face: Oil is a depleting, finite resource - albeit one crucial for the "American way of life."

Because this resource is so crucial - and obviously not just for Americans - depletion is going to drive prices up as consumers bid for dwindling supplies. Threatening to sue OPEC isn't going to change that. Threatening to tax Big Oil into submission isn't going to change that. Mandating that we will invent new technologies to meet a greatly increased Renewable Fuel Standard isn't going to change that. These are the sorts of proposals that merely demonstrate that your grasp of the problem is superficial. And you have to understand the problem in order to begin addressing it.

Mark Reynolds in NSW provided this excellent submission to the Australian Federal Government's Garnaut Climate Change Review on Issue Paper Number 5: Transport Planning and the Built Environment.

Mark's complete submission is available as a PDF.

Professor Garnaut,

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this submission. In the following pages I set out to show that you have not included in your thinking to date the most disruptive factor affecting transport emissions. Given that oil is the lifeblood of our transport system I provide evidence that escalating oil costs and supply constraints are real and critical within short planning horizons. I then describe four linked and supportive policy thrusts to develop a low emissions transport sector in Australia, with economic, social and environmental benefits.

John McCain, who just hours earlier proposed a "tax holiday" in which the 18 cent federal tax on gasoline would be suspended during the summer driving season, has reconsidered and has instead proposed that the U.S. gallon be redefined to be equal in volume to the current U.S. quart. "This will immediately lower the price at the pump by 75%, providing visible relief to millions of Americans", quipped McCain. "I rejected the idea of setting it equal to the liter, for obvious reasons".

When questioners suggested that this move wouldn't actually change how much consumers spend to fill their tanks, McCain responded "Well, neither would my previous proposal".

In unrelated election news, the McCain campaign announced that P.T. Barnum has been posthumously appointed as their policy director. Also, Hillary Clinton has proposed a suspension of the law of gravity, at least during the summer flying season, to help the beleaguered airline industry. Barack Obama reportedly had no comment on these suggestions, other than to say that Americans are definitely "atwitter" about gas prices.

We interrupt this vacation from reality with the following observations...(under the fold...)

In Sydney today, Bruce Robinson, Convenor of the Australian Association for the Study of Peak Oil attended a news conference where Lee Rhiannon, Green MLC launched a bill for a NSW Oil Vulnerability Task Force.

ASPO Australia issued their own media release which has been picked up by the Sydney Morning Herald: SMH - Sydney must prepare now for peak oil

Sydneysiders must take serious steps to reduce their vehicle use before future global oil shortages hit, a peak oil study group says.

ASPO Australia's Bruce Robinson has called on the federal and NSW governments to get more cars off the roads before the oil shock hits.

This is a guest post from Kiashu.

From Auntie we learn that in South Australia, soon householders with photovoltaic setups will be able to sell their power to the grid at double the retail rate. I had a look at some figures and saw that as they said, it's not going to be a money-making scheme for the average household, who would have to be energy-conservers to break even, though in principle it could be an investment with a small return for community organisations, since they have buildings with a large roof area which aren't used much - we'd have to look at figures for larger (20+kW) systems to be sure.

South Australia will become the first state to pay a premium to people who install solar panels which can return power to the electricity grid. From July, electricity generated by solar panels will be worth twice that bought from power retailers. Legislation passed by State Parliament last night extends the scheme to small businesses, churches and community groups.

South Australian Greens MP Mark Parnell says his amendment was accepted by the Government to make it a 20-year scheme instead of five. "This new bill isn't going to make solar panels a money-making scheme for people; what it does is it softens some of the expense," he said. "We already have the commonwealth rebates which are a good incentive, now we've got this extra state rebate and thanks to the Greens amendment we've now got a scheme that is guaranteed to last 20 years."

The legislation has been passed just ahead of Adelaide hosting an international solar cities congress next week.

Kevin Rudd has taken the unusual, but I think admirable (and seemingly popular), step of convening a national summit to map out Australia's long term future and is looking for ideas on a range of issues that will be impacted by peak oil (particularly population, sustainability, climate change and water and security and international relations).

A website will soon be established allowing all Australians to make submissions on each of the policy areas, so I thought I'd open it up for suggestions - what would (or will) you propose in a submission ?

My top 5 suggestions :

* increase the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target (MRET) to 30%
* introduce a carbon tax, starting off a low base and increasing until coal fired power has a similar cost to wind or concentrated solar power today
* increase fuel efficiency standards for vehicles
* rebuild / expand the national rail system for freight haulage
* modernise and expand public transport systems in major cities

KEVIN RUDD will ask 1000 of the "best and brightest brains" to map out a strategy for Australia's long-term future in areas ranging from the economy and the environment to the arts and health.

The Prime Minister said yesterday a two-day Australia 2020 summit in Parliament House in April would bring together talented people from outside government to look beyond the usual short-term focus of politics and policymaking. The aim would be to come up with policies to help meet challenges Australia faced over the next decade and beyond. "For too long Australian policymaking has been focused on short-term outcomes dictated by the electoral cycle," Mr Rudd said. "If Australia is to effectively confront the challenges of the future, we need to develop an agreed national direction that looks at the next 10 years and beyond." ...

The Government has identified 10 areas it will ask the summit to tackle. These are: directions for the economy; infrastructure; environmental issues including population, sustainability, climate change and water; rural Australia; national health strategy; strengthening communities; indigenous Australia; the arts; the future of government; and Australia's security and international relations.

The House is scheduled to vote today on their latest incarnation of an energy bill:

Energy bill vote pushed to today amid opposition

WASHINGTON -- Congressional Democratic leaders pushed back a vote on an energy bill with a historic increase in fuel economy standards until today, in the face of growing opposition from Senate Republicans, President George W. Bush and even some Democrats.

As outlined by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the bill would include new requirements for renewable fuels, the elimination of $21 billion tax breaks to oil companies and other sources of revenue, and require electric utilities to generate 15% of their energy from renewable sources by 2020.