Resolution from Darlington NSW Branch on global warming

Global warming is now accepted as being caused by the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from fossil-fuel burning. There is also consensus that such warming, if unchecked, if not already, will have dire consequences. There is a debate over the economic consequences of adopting the necessary emission reduction targets. While this debate is being resolved, we should promptly undertake actions which will not disrupt the economy but which will reduce our energy-from-fossil-fuel consumption.

That Darlington Branch recommends to our parliamentarians, state & federal, the following immediate actions to reduce carbon dioxide emissions -

1. Mandate greenpower premiums for all electricity customers (with exemptions for pensioners) rather than restrict them to altruistic volunteers.

2. Require electricity suppliers to spend the increased revenue from #1 on renewable electrical energy generation.

3. Abolish off-peak, overnight, electricity tariffs (these are only necessary for base-load dependent coal-fired stations).

4. Remove tax discounts from 4WD vehicles

(passed Darlington Branch 26/6, Marrickville SEC 2/7)

EXPLANATORY NOTES

Global warming is now accepted as being caused by the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from fossil-fuel burning.

There is also consensus that such warming, if unchecked, if not already, will have dire consequences.

There is a debate over the economic consequences of adopting the necessary emission reduction targets.

While this debate is being resolved, we should promptly undertake actions which will not disrupt the economy but which will reduce our energy-from-fossil-fuel consumption - the Turnbull mandate of compact fluorescent light bulbs is such an action.

This motion proposes 5 other such actions - each of which is explained below.

They do not exhaust the actions required to limit global warming.

They are, never-the-less, new to the debate.
They will be readily accepted by the community-at-large - which is ahead of the conservative politicians on this matter.

If adopted by the ALP, they will differentiate the ALP from the Coalition - always a pragmatic consideration.
From the perspective of economics, over-use of fossil fuels has occurred, firstly, out of ignorance of the costs (to the environment).

Latterly, thanks to Stern et al, we know the future costs of our present over-use - and the need to act now (at lesser cost) to avoid them.

Continued over-use can only serve short-term vested interests.

But all actions come at a cost - Global warming will not go away without some readjustment of our 'economy'. (There never has been a free lunch.)

The aim must be to act at a cost which the economy can stand - with the widest sharing (equity), and concern for the least able to absorb the increased costs (safety net).

Market economics also tells us that a price increase will lead to a drop in consumption - which (where it leads to a drop CO2 emissions) is the main game anyway.
Now to talk to each action -

1. Mandate greenpower premiums for all electricity customers (with exemptions for pensioners) rather than restrict them to altruistic volunteers.
For years the greenies have been comforted by knowing that they are not polluting the atmosphere (like the rest of us) when they switch on a radiator, mid-winter.
This moral high-ground has been bought for a mere $100/year of greenpower.
But the market penetration has been minimal.
Now is the time for us all to use 'green' power - at a cost-penalty of probably less than $100/year - even if only because we will use less.
But we need government action to allow an increase which will be put to good use (see 2, of course)
Because there are some marginalised members of the community who cannot pay more for electricity, we will exempt them.
That still provides a lot more money for 'renewable' energy.
This action, alone, will not put coal-fired power stations out of business - it will put a lot more wind turbines on the hills.

2. Require electricity suppliers to spend the increased revenue from #1 on renewable electrical energy generation.
The electricity suppliers think they need a price increase to refurbish their aging coal-fired system. That may be true - but it is not a substitute for moving away from coal.
There may a synergy between replacement and refurbishment anyway - action number 12, say, (not covered by this motion) will explore further.
Here we simply lock in a particular revenue stream to a particular outcome.
Something the suppliers currently do for the greenies anyway.

3. Abolish off-peak, overnight, electricity tariffs (these are only necessary for base-load dependent coal-fired stations).
Whenever the vested interests in wind and solar urge us to use more of their products, the coalies point out (validly) that these energy sources will never be able to supply 'base load'.
The sun does go down each night; you can't rely on the wind blowing all the time.
However, base load is something that inflexible coal-fired power stations need for themselves.
Literally for decades, we have been encouraged to install off-peak HWS.
We have been offered a reduced tariff - but the main game has been to keep the coal-fired power stations ticking over so as to be ready for the breakfast peak.
In any case, the current wisdom for hot water is roof-top solar panels.
We are rightly encouraged to do this -with a government subsidy.
Elimination of the off-peak tariff will add to this - maybe even allow the government to reduce its subsidy.
There is more to overnight electricity than hot water - like office building lighting, and advertising.
These applications can readily prove their worth by paying a higher tariff.

4. Remove tax discounts from 4WD vehicles
Now we move away from demonising coal - just for a spell - we will return with actions 18, 23 & 27.
In the fog of high atmospheric carbon dioxide, there are 2 main sources - coal-fired power station flue stacks and vehicle exhausts.
Again, a lot of thought can be given to how to reduce vehicle emissions (ban Chinese from driving ?) but surely, today, there is no justification for encouraging Australians to drive heavy, fuel-inefficient (Toorak) tractors.
In a free country, we must be allowed to drive 4WDs (while we work out other ways to reduce vehicle emissions) - but not with a subsidy from you & me.

5. Make the commonwealth Chief Scientist carbon neutral.
Finally, for now, we look a simple administrative step.
I'm sure the federal government needs the best technical advice it can get.
I even allow that Jim Peacock does give good advice - he should even be credited with Howard's Damascus turnaround on global warming.
But we wrestle with conflict of interest daily in other areas.
We talk about eliminating the 'perception' of conflict to depersonalise the debate.
It just doesn't seem fair to a Chief Scientist to be above suspicion when his main income comes from Rio Tinto.
Again, without impugning the sincerity with which he goes about his work, I can wonder about the altruism of his employer in offering him to the federal government.

Just how the Chief Scientist is neutralised is not specified.

Here are 2 suggestions -

• Expand the job up to a tribunal - with people like Tim Flannery joining.

• I'd be surprised if the required expertise and wisdom to guide us through global warming did not already reside within CSIRO, anyway.

Download File:
[ rtf ]