Reply to Piers Akerman Article - (Sunday 7/9/08)

Article by Piers Akerman - "PM's climate change proven to be hot air"

Now Piers is pretty well known for being everything 'Anti-Rudd' and he claims in this article have proven that introducing an ETS will be more expensive than the consequences of 'business as usual.'

My point, and I think I have one, is that its not about cost, its about missed opportunity.

My reply is as follows:

Missing the point Piers, about what is lost without an ETS.
A mild ETS in Australia locks in a path to develop geosequestration of carbon emissions from coal fired power stations.

If they get 'clean development' mechanisms in place, then carbon emissions are reduced by investing in this technology in China etc
If you get this in place, then you lock in the supply of black coal for 30-50 years. (Power Station boiler life) Australia has lots of black coal, China has lots of brown coal, which emits more carbon when burnt.

A mild ETS will give black coal a 30-50 comparative advantage, and big export earnings for Australia.

Competition would come from natural gas, which needs to be turned into LNG to export. An LNG plant needs significant capital and a strong supply. Wonder why Santos is getting stung for the extra tax?

Where do the people who voted Kevin Rudd in as opposition leader comes from? How many ex-labor luvvies are on the board of coal companies?
Don't get me wrong, Australia stands to do very nicely out of this, Queensland and New South Wales too if they can get their act together and find some capital to invest in infrastructure.

Greenhouse and Climate Change has become a trade issue internationally, the IPCC, the climate scientists, the greenies, and yes even the 'deniers' have became a side show.