Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
Addressing climate change through true cost pricing
Frank de Jong, Online Opinion
Over the past few decades we have been burning the fossil fuels that took 400 million years to accrete, changing the climate in the process. The air now contains about 35 per cent more CO2 than in 1700, far more than in any period in the past 800,000 years. CO2 build up over the past 17 years has been 60 times faster than in any period revealed by ice core analysis.
Clearly, urgent action is needed, but care must be taken to choose the right urgent action. The Howard plan of carbon trading by 2012 is neither soon enough nor the right action. Carbon trading is inadvisable for several reasons. First, it is a new tax which makes it politically unpalatable. There is no need for a new tax, but merely a tax shift. That is, there should be concomitant tax relief on punitive taxes on income or production (which will have wide-ranging electoral support).
So, as part of a revenue-neutral tax shift, a carbon levy should be applied “at source” on the assessed carbon content of fossil fuels. Carbon emissions from a set volume of oil, coal and gas vary, but these variations can be assessed.
At source, the monitoring, collection and compliance costs are far easier and less expensive than at points further on in the production and distribution cycle (where carbon trading is focused). In addition, this gives every incentive for industries which choose to use oil, coal or gas to minimise use.
In contrast, if charges are applied at the end point (on the consumer), few discretionary market choices can then be exercised. Another advantage of taxing carbon at source is that there are far fewer points of taxation, facilitating compliance. ..
Frank De Jong is the leader of the Green Party of Ontario (Canada).
(19 Jul 2007)
How are you going to make millions from climate change?
Thomas Hunter, Crikey.com
With climate change rewiring everything from global politics to our choice of light globes, there is an emerging market for energy efficient, eco-friendly goods and services. But how are you going to capitalise on it?
Here, with the help of Tristan Edis, Policy and Research Manager at the Business Council for Sustainable Energy, Grist, and the Alternative Technology Association, Crikey identifies areas which are waiting for a savvy entrepreneur to gobble up the growing demand for green-tinged businesses.
i. Demand management and energy efficiency service providers
According to surveys by the International Energy Agency, Australia is the most energy inefficient developed nation in the world. Businesses that can find a successful model for delivering energy efficiency and demand management improvements in the residential and commercial sector will find a ready market for their ideas. Tristan Edis at the BCSE says that, “With $22 billion being spent on electricity distribution infrastructure over the next five years … the needless energy wastage and inefficiency of current buildings and appliances has to be addressed.”
ii. Design an electric car people will pay money for ..
(19 Jul 2007)
Greens to banks: Just say no to coal
Steve Hargreaves, CNNMoney
Environmental group tells big financiers to stop funding dirty power plants.
—
Fueled by climate change concern and a Texas utility’s recent scrapping of several “dirty” power plants, one environmental group is looking to cut funding for new coal fired power plants at the source: the big banks.
San Francisco-based Rainforest Action Network says there are plans for 150 new coal power plants in the next few decades with a price tag of over $125 billion, so it’s asking the banks that give loans to utilities – specifically Citigroup (Charts, Fortune 500), J.P. Morgan (Charts, Fortune 500) and Bank of America (Charts, Fortune 500) – to pull the plug on financing.
(16 July 2007)
