Rio Tinto’s claim that nuclear is one of the best hopes for Australia’s future energy supply makes me question whether this implies that Rio Tinto and other ‘big polluters’ know coal will soon become unviable.
According to Rio Tinto’s submission, the coal and uranium mining giant notes that existing low-cost coal fired power stations will have to be replaced earlier than previously expected. Rio Tinto also claims that carbon capture and storage has significant limitations in delivering the large-scale emissions reductions that the Government is pinning its hopes on.
This leads me to ask why Rio Tinto and other big polluters are demanding billions of dollars in compensation from the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme when the days of dirty coal generation are numbered?
Compensation
In my opinion, this puts the compensation claims from dirty coal generators in a new light. I believe that these big polluters, many of whom are foreign-owned, may be misleading the government and the public.
I assume that they have mapped a time horizon for their exit from dirty coal generation, yet they want to extract maximum dollars from Australian taxpayers on their way out.
Why aren’t we rejecting the big polluters’ continuing cries for compensation and focus more on the transition to a low carbon future, which we urgently need to make?
Scare Tactics
The fossil fuel industry will hysterically claim that without compensation the ‘lights will go out’, ‘jobs will go overseas’ and ‘prices will increase’ but I believe these are just scare tactics.
Big polluters need to stop eating up our resources for energy sector transition and start focussing on cost-effective ways to reduce Australia’s emissions using existing methods, such as energy efficiency.
Energy Efficiency
According to The International Energy Agency, energy efficiency will provide at least 54% of emission reductions worldwide to 2030.
Other countries are taking the lead and considering energy efficiency as their most important energy resource because they understand that it will not only significantly reduce carbon emissions, but it will also reduce power bills for industry and consumers.
Energy efficiency is an invisible giant waiting to be awoken in Australia, and that is why I am backing the newly formed Australian Alliance to Save Energy, which among other things will provide the positive news about opportunities to transition our economy. This is necessary to offset the continuous barrage of doomsday messages perpetuated by the fossil fuel industry.
---
More information about this topic in our energy section.
Good article -- and I suspect you're right. (I've looked askance at fossil fuel and automotive companies for fecades.)
And the conservation angle is indeed huge. I live in Bangkok, and conciously began trying to cut back on my electricity and water usage (no gas to worry about). Depending on the month, I save between about 40% and 50% of what I was paying previously, and that's even with small rate hikes for both. Most importantly, my lifestyle is every bit as comfortable now as it was when I embarked on this little exercise.
Sure, there are certain necessities; a refrigerator is an excellent example, as is, of course, lighting. Plus heating or cooling (or both), probably, depending on just where one lives. Well, okay, heating and cooling aren't strictly necessary, but for many of us who grew up with them, they sure *seem* to be!
I've even been able to compensate for the two indulgences I give myself at home: my computer, and my TV, both of which I keedp on most of my waking hours, as I'm retired. BUT, I changed my daily habit of going out every single day to "hang out with the boys," eliminating a number of taxi trips. True, I didn't go far; even round-trip to my normal destination is under two kilometers. So, a little fuel is saved. I also own no vehicle myself, not even a bicycle (which would be suicidal in this city); short distances I travel by foot. I don't know if all that offsets my computer and tv useage, but it has to help.
Since installing solar panels, wind turbines, water wheels, and geothermal systems are all expensive, I focus my urgings on plain conservation, a far easier sell since that not only doesn't involve any cash outlay but increases your savings.
I came to know your website as I was reading TreeHugger and your comment in one of the posts.
Indeed coal is the most polluting fuel possible. It is estimated that most renewables and nuclear energy emits 20 times less CO2...
I wish energy efficiency played a bigger role in carbon dioxide emissions and energy consumption reduction. As you point out it is the cheapest way to go toward a more sustainable development.
Here is a post I wrote on the topic a few months back : http://www.elrst.com/2009/03/09/ranking-efficiency-of-solutions/
Keep up the good work, meanwhile : Greetings from France !
Green directory of eco-friendly Australian businesses. This green directory is providing you all details about environmental companies around Australia. Find the green business around your place.
Comments
And the conservation angle is indeed huge. I live in Bangkok, and conciously began trying to cut back on my electricity and water usage (no gas to worry about). Depending on the month, I save between about 40% and 50% of what I was paying previously, and that's even with small rate hikes for both. Most importantly, my lifestyle is every bit as comfortable now as it was when I embarked on this little exercise.
Sure, there are certain necessities; a refrigerator is an excellent example, as is, of course, lighting. Plus heating or cooling (or both), probably, depending on just where one lives. Well, okay, heating and cooling aren't strictly necessary, but for many of us who grew up with them, they sure *seem* to be!
I've even been able to compensate for the two indulgences I give myself at home: my computer, and my TV, both of which I keedp on most of my waking hours, as I'm retired. BUT, I changed my daily habit of going out every single day to "hang out with the boys," eliminating a number of taxi trips. True, I didn't go far; even round-trip to my normal destination is under two kilometers. So, a little fuel is saved. I also own no vehicle myself, not even a bicycle (which would be suicidal in this city); short distances I travel by foot. I don't know if all that offsets my computer and tv useage, but it has to help.
Since installing solar panels, wind turbines, water wheels, and geothermal systems are all expensive, I focus my urgings on plain conservation, a far easier sell since that not only doesn't involve any cash outlay but increases your savings.
Again, a good piece that I enjoyed.
I came to know your website as I was reading TreeHugger and your comment in one of the posts.
Indeed coal is the most polluting fuel possible. It is estimated that most renewables and nuclear energy emits 20 times less CO2...
I wish energy efficiency played a bigger role in carbon dioxide emissions and energy consumption reduction. As you point out it is the cheapest way to go toward a more sustainable development.
Here is a post I wrote on the topic a few months back :
http://www.elrst.com/2009/03/09/ranking-efficiency-of-solutions/
Keep up the good work, meanwhile : Greetings from France !