• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • 1
    CommentGo Back
Download
 
Carbon Trading Power Game page 1
P o w e r G a m e s i n A u s t r a l i a
by Ally Hauptmann-Gurski 3rd December 2009
It is time to look at the underlying power structures of the power game.In all the excitement about personalities, old leaders, new leaders andideologies of political parties, we have been distracted from the realpower games that are played backstage. The wrangling between con-servative and progressive forces about CO2 emissions amounts to shuf-fling the deckchairs on the Titanic. In order to move forward we mustunderstand the games which are hidden from our view.
For the summer holidays, the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) ishibernating. We can all take a step back and ponder the ways of theworld, the Liberal Party’s power in Australian lawmaking, but moreparticularly the real power games.Had the freshly elected opposition leader Tony Abbott not pulledthe nuclear option out of his sleeve again, I would not be writing this.We have already heard from his side of politics that there is really noneed to reduce emissions, not if it costs money that is. More than6,000,000,000 people on this planet produce emissions with everythingthey do, and it does not matter. The market will fix it, just like the mar-ket fixed the GFC. Maybe praying will fix it. Go right ahead if you be-lieve that. Go right ahead, and don’t waste your time reading on.I believe there is a hidden agenda here, i.e. keep electricity gen-eration in the hands of big business. With coal and nuclear, the bigbusiness structures remain intact, as opposed to transferring a signifi-cant share of electricity generation into the wider population throughsolar panels on dwellings and wind turbines in farmers’ paddocks.Whenever a technology emerges that eats into the turnover of the bigelectricity companies there is resistance.The first time I came across this issue was in about 1980, when(in Germany) I read about a gas fired central heating unit which alsoproduced electricity. While it heated water for radiators, about 40%of the gas input created updraft that could be used to generate elec-
 
Carbon Trading Power Game page 2
tricity, but the machine was verboten. A home owner could not beturned into an electricity supplier, the argument went and landlords(most people lived in apartments) could not become electricity retail-ers for their tenants. We were already aware of excessive air pollu-tion, especially in cities, and could not find the logic in that unless wesaw the explanation in electricity co-generation being in competitionto the almighty power companies.In the abstract, that means all power generation outside the es-tablished suppliers is eating into the profitability of big business. Thisapplies to all new technology which is used in the general population.For the record, it needs to be said that the machine was taken off theverboten list in Germany in the 90s. Business, however, had gainedabout 15 years of profit at the expense of millions of consumers, andthe unnecessarily produced emissions are still up there.Because diversification disturbs the proven business models of big business, the focus always returns to the non-diversification struc-ture which requires big business, i.e. coal, nuclear, and gas. The ex-perts say time and time again that clean coal is too far into the futureto make a dent in emissions; it may even turn out to be cloudcookoland,and yet, clean coal keeps popping up like a bad smell.What are we to think of that? The way we are going, due to dec-ades of research and testing, carbon sequestration looks like becom-ing so expensive that coal generated electricity would be unaffordable.Those 20 or more years of research and testing will have to be paid forby future electricity users. This may make the Australian States veryhappy, because higher GST on high electricity prices would end up intheir coffers.This reminds me of what I used to say jokingly: “They don’t likewind and solar power because it is more difficult to put up prices! Orcould they argue, that the wind and sun went up 10% last year - so wehave to pass on these price increases?” Jokes aside, this is a seriousaspect because if electricity prices could not be raised with inflation
 
Carbon Trading Power Game page 3
over a decade or two, that would definitely eat into GST revenue whileschools and soldiers, prisoners and police still need to be funded. Thisopposite effect of bracket creep would be a delight for the low taxesideologues, and the electricity consumer, but demonstrates that thereis a limit to lowering taxes, unless you want police passing their hatsaround for a donation next time you need their help. Between exces-sive electricity prices through carbon sequestration and such low pricesthat we have to close prisons and schools, there has to be rationalmiddle ground. The conflict is that the planet would need transferralof electricity generation to private homes, but big business would missout on profits and the reduction in tax revenue would require othertaxes to be raised.There is indeed a huge conflict of interest of Marxian proportionshere. If electricity generation is kept in the hands of big business, andassuming there will definitely be a tax/levy on their carbon emssions,the population will also pay for the pollution which falls on the elec-tricity lost in transmisson lines. Losses vary according to technologybut losses there are. It is insulting that the consumer, private and busi-ness alike,should pay for 100 % of the emissions while he is receivingonly a portion in electricity. It follows that all electricity generation atthe point of usage has less emissions per kW/h. While that is highlydesirable for the planet and the consumer, it is not desirable for law-makers and their political parties. Big business funds political partiesand has jobs for former politicians. Households make only small dona-tions to political parties, if any, and cannot offer well paid jobs to formerministers. There is no carrot for lawmakers to tilt legislation in favourof the planet, i.e. electricity generation at the point of use.Hot rocks seems to be the only emission free power generationthat does not lend itself to transferral into the population. No prob-lem, the issue is not ideological, the issue is reducing emissions.Let’s put the cat among the pigeons: Ideally, we should take allcoal fired power stations out of service, but we cannot do that as quicklyas needed. Carbon sequestration in 25 years or nuclear power sta-
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...

uploaded a new revision for this document (#2)

12 / 11 / 2009
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...