NEG may double carbon price to $35/tonne for industrial sectors | RenewEconomy

NEG may double carbon price to $35/tonne for industrial sectors

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Weak target for NEG will impose an effective carbon price of $35/tonne on rest of economy, or a total of $10 billion, and will ignore cheaper emissions reductions from wind and solar. This as Nationals push for three new coal generators to be funded by government.

AAP Image/Mick Tsikas
Print Friendly, PDF & Email
(AAP Image/Mick Tsikas)

The disaster that is the Coalition government’s climate and energy policy has been underlined by a new report that suggests the proposed National Energy Guarantee will impose an effective carbon price of $35/tonne on industrial sectors.

The analysis from Reputex confirms many assessments that the weak emissions reduction target for the electricity sector that the Turnbull government is seeking to enshrine in NEG will most likely be met by 2020, a decade ahead of time.

With no policy to extract low-cost emissions cuts in electricity, the emphasis will fall on other sectors to meet Australia’s national emissions reductions target of 26-28 per cent.

For the first time, Reputex puts a price on this abatement in other industrial sectors, at $35/tonne – more than 50 per cent more than the fixed carbon price of the Rudd government, and probably four times more than it would have been if the carbon price had remained.

Little wonder that the likes of former prime minister Tony Abbott is using this as a pretext for calling for Australia to follow the Trump administration’s example and quit the Paris climate treaty.

And it is doubly galling to see the main business and industry lobby groups – principally the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Industry Group, the Minerals Council of Australia – argue for such a weak NEG, when it is patently obvious wind and solar and energy efficiency offer by far the cheapest form of abatement.

It was these business groups who called on Abbott to can the carbon price to protect their own short-term interests.

The BCA, for instance, argues on one hand that having a higher emissions target for electricity, and so having more wind and solar, would “wreck” the economy, the same argument they and the AiG used against a $23/tonne carbon price.

Yet now they are calling for a policy that will impose an effective cost of carbon on their sectors far higher than could ever have been imagined with the formal carbon price. Reputex puts the cost to industry at $10 billion over the 10 years, and this will flow through to consumers.

And according to The Australian, while Abbott is calling for Australia to pull out of the Paris climate treaty, the Nationals have put together a proposal to have not one, but three new coal fired generators built by a government owned entity.

It all beggars belief, but then pretty much everything does when it comes to climate and energy policy with this government, and Australian industry, and their regressive attitude to climate science and renewable energy technologies.

RepuTex says a 26 per cent target for the NEG, which the Coalition has refused to move and wants to lock in so it can’t be changed, would leave a shortfall of around 500 million tonnes of abatement to meet Australia’s national emissions reduction target.

To “fill the gap” to the target, RepuTex forecasts that the Australian carbon price may rise to $35/t in 2030, with industry – notably high emitting energy, materials and industrial companies – bearing the brunt of the higher abatement cost.

“With the electricity sector locked into the NEG, other sectors – particularly large energy, materials and industrials facilities – will be called on to fill the gap to 2030”, says Hugh Grossman, executive director at RepuTex.

“As this occurs, we expect carbon contract prices to rise to $35/t in 2030 – more than double current levels – behind the need for more expensive abatement from industry.”

Grossman notes that, unlike the electricity sector – which has a range of low-cost emissions reduction opportunities available to it, mostly cheap wind and solar – abatement is far more expensive for large energy users.

“In relying heavily on external abatement sources, such as Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs), we see the cumulative cost to industry at around $10 billion to meet Australia’s 2030 target.”

Meanwhile, the electricity sector would exceed its 26 per cent target under business as usual, because of wind and solar contracting and existing construction commitments.

“The NEG will therefore be relatively light touch, with minimal emissions reduction costs under the scheme,” he said. This analysis agrees with assessment by ITK’s David Leitch, Green Energy Markets, and many others.

Grossman says the international carbon price is likely to go beyond the Australia price and rise to the equivalent of $A50 by 2030, but that’s because countries in those markets have more ambitious targets.

“While international carbon units are historically perceived as ‘low cost’, we see carbon prices in Europe and California growing beyond A$50 by 2030 as those markets seek to meet increased emissions reduction commitments” Grossman said.

“This type of forward curve is the new normal for international prices, as more abatement is needed to meet stricter targets.”

He said Australia needed policy certainty, but it doesn’t have any. “This is the elephant in the room that policymakers will struggle to avoid much longer”, he said.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

  1. Ben 2 years ago

    So with record subsidised renewables investment in an attempt to reduce emissions to have zero effect on climate change, almost 20,000 residences were disconnected from electricity in 2017-18 for non-payment.

    Solution: ditch the RET subsidies, force intermittent generators to contract backup sources, investigate and prosecute price gouging

    • Rod 2 years ago

      Yes, but why were those premises disconnected. Of course the simple minded believe it is due to high bills but the simple minded should go do some research. Start with St Vincent de Paul oh simple one.

    • Andy Saunders 2 years ago

      Zero effect huh?

      Been listening to Alan Jones lately? That well-known climate scientist?

      Maybe you’re a taxi-driver.

      • Joe 2 years ago

        …he Jonesy’s driver?

    • Joe 2 years ago

      Benny boy, a lot of assumptions in there. Perhaps you missed the information / findings that have been around for a while now that RE is not the big driver of energy price rises that you and your FF booster fanboys always try to make out. It was the ‘network gold plating’ that drove the price rises. And those 20,000 disconnections, please give us the details.

      • Shilo 2 years ago

        Joe, it is much better to address the person by the name they have posted. Prices first went up with the drought in 2007/2008, then the carbon tax, and then recently in the last three years.
        Thank goodness, it would seem they are finally falling.
        The prices should keep falling.

      • Ben 2 years ago

        Hi Joe, you can check the AER website for the electricity bill disconnection and hardship history.

        I agree the ACCC report and others identify over indulgence in network infrastructure as a major contributor to price increase.

        But renewables built since 1 April 2001 have been and will continue to be, paid twice, all at the customers expense.

        Wind farm variable output creates opportunities for gouging, while reducing market share for everything else. When the wind stops, something still has to generate the power. Wind farms at not penalised for this negative contribution to efficiency, they are rewarded. It really majes no sense.

        Power bills going down by anything significant under this scheme is a pipe dream.

        • Giles 2 years ago

          U saY: “But renewables built since 1 April 2001 have been and will continue to be, paid twice, all at the customers expense.”

          That Is patently and demonstrably false. you keep repeating it but that doesn’t make it true.

          • Ben 2 years ago

            What’s false about it?

          • Giles 2 years ago

            Because most wind and solar farms don’t get paid twice. They write a “bundled” contract which is a single payment that attributes in most cases zero value to LGCs, and in other cases minimal value.
            A small number of projects go merchant, and get both wholesale prices and LGC prices, but the reason those LGC prices has absolutely nothing to do withy the cost of renewables or the technology, but because the retailers went on an investment strike and didn’t bother meeting the legislated targets.
            You really do have to stop believing everything you read from the IPA and the Murdoch media.

          • Ben 2 years ago

            “The revenue earned by the power station for the sale of LGCs is additional to that received for the sale of the electricity generated.”


          • Giles 2 years ago

            can be created, can be sold. doesn’t change from fact that most are given to retailers for nothing.
            I can see how you became a climate science denier, you really don’t like facts and figures do you.

          • Ben 2 years ago

            Seriously, how does questioning the logic of the RET and wind farms automatically trigger the “climate science denier” stuff?

            Anyway, regardless of your tone, you are not presenting any facts and figures.

            Facts are:
            – 1 MWh of renewable power earns 1 LGC for the generator
            – LGC are sold or transferred for a price

            I can accept that high energy users will manage risk through a PPA, and LGCs will be transferred that way, maybe below the market price. But stating that the RET is not a form of income for renewable generators is a bit rich.

          • Giles 2 years ago

            So, a wind farm sells its output and LGCs for a total price of $55/MWh. The average price of electricity in that state is $90/MWh.
            Show me the subsidy!

          • Giles 2 years ago

            Hey, it just occurred to me. Are you Alan Moran?

          • RobertO 2 years ago

            Hi Giles, or is he a lawyer that work for the ex prime minister (the flip flopper, I believe in CC, I do not believe in CC, I believe in CC and now many times later “We need to leave the Paris Accord”.

          • RobertO 2 years ago

            Hi Giles, I found the subsidy !!!!

            So the retailer locks in the price at $55.00 /MWhr ($0.055 or 5.5 cents per kWhr).
            I buy that same kWhr for 24 cents at my home
            Working backwards 11 cents gets paid to the Poles and Wires people (about 48%)

            So Ben logic is that RE get paid twice. (they must do)

            I keep meaning to ask Ben
            “When is a subsidy not a subsidy?
            Is it when the Diesel Rebate (Diesel is a Fossil Fuel, FF) paid to a school (which is nothing to do with Electricity)?
            Is it when there is no costing on the pollution poured out into the atmosphere by burning any FF (NSW has licences for coal power but they are adjusted to suit each site, H2SO4 is the classic China has limits and NSW has none)?
            Is it when a new house must have Natural Gas connection added to there site?

            I have the luxury of blocking users so ben is one of mine!

          • Giles 2 years ago

            That’s not a subsidy. This is a subsidy.

            When NSW government sold trading rights of Eraring to Origin Energy, it promised to deliver cheap coal through the state owned coal project Cobborra.

            When it became lear that they couldn’t mine the coal for the price promised to origin, they had to cancel the contract, and pay origin $300m.

            Basically meant NSW paid origin to take Eraring. Part of a wonderful successful privatsation program that included sale of Vales Point for $1m and Liddell for nothing.

            one of the advisers to the government: Kerry Schott.

          • RobertO 2 years ago

            Hi Giles, If Vales Point gets sold for $330 M can we could we count that as a subsidy to coal, or is that just plain stupidity by our state COALition
            Thank you for doing such a good job

          • Giles 2 years ago

            stupidity. but there are other words. Vales Point is now valued by its owners at $750m.

          • Ben 2 years ago

            The RET is an incentive scheme that ensures eligible generators receive income additional to that from the power they sell.

            Are you claiming that is a false statement?

          • Giles 2 years ago


          • Giles 2 years ago

            because if the value of the RECS is zero, they are not getting any additional income. They don’t need any to make the project viable.

          • Ben 2 years ago

            The wind farm sells the LGCs to a retailer. The retailer passes that cost to the customer.

            Are you trying to say the RET is not a renewable incentive scheme?

          • Giles 2 years ago

            ah, now we are getting to the heart of it. the wind and solar farm sells the REC for nothing, so get no subsidy, but the retailer claims one anyway from the customer.
            Just another element of the gouging in the market, and why it needs such a complete overhaul.
            RET is an incentive scheme for the retailers to invest in renewables. They would do it otherwise as it impacts the rest of their assets

          • Ben 2 years ago

            Thanks. So I read the effect of that creates money for investment solely in renewables, which cost is born by the customer, in addition to the cost of power.

          • Giles 2 years ago

            you are getting close. so, i think we have established that all wind and solar farms do not, as you repeatedly claimed, get paid twice.

            But it’s probably true that the customers get charged twice. That’s a different matter, and is about the ability of the main utilities to rip off consumers.

            Pricing regulators allow utilities to do this, even though it is no refrletion of the cost. Just as they allowed retailers to charge ‘head room”, and other ruses the served to gouge the customer.

          • Ben 2 years ago

            I am nothing if not persistent, and I am interested in the direction this is heading.

            I’m only claiming “paid twice” because that’s the rules and the intent of the scheme. Generators might not literally receive two separate cheques in the mail every month, but a component of their income must be from the LGC, that’s the legislated purpose of it.

            I can accept that after hedging and trading and futures and all that, a generator might write off the LGC as $0, which is different to the actual cost charged by retailers to customers.

            But… the retailers’ income and margins have been checked and not found to be excessive. So where does most of the LGC component go, that ends up on electricity bills, if not to the generator, even if it’s mixed up in a PPA?

            And there’s a spot market for LGCs, and the other LGC markets.

            The net outcome of the whole mess must be more return on investment for renewables than anything else.

            And as a result there has and is an ongoing rush to build wind and solar farms, the investment boom you have written about yourself many times.

          • Giles 2 years ago

            You amaze me.
            “The fact that the income and margins have found to be not excessive”
            Really? I don’t think you will find a single consumer in the country who would not say they are excessive./ The fact that a regulator checked over its own work and give itself a tick does not mean it’s not so.
            Really can’t believe your logic here. More twists and turns and pikes than can be found in a diving handbook.
            Yes, there has been an investment boom because the retailers must reach their legislated targets.
            The point I have been arguing is that many of these investments have been made without a subsidy – contrary to your claim.
            The fact that the customer is charged a subsidy is another matter, and one which goes to the almighty rip-off of the consumers at every turn of the corner in this monopoly/oligopoly industry.
            Are you sure yo have been “in and out” of control rooms?

          • Giles 2 years ago

            In so far as the retailer is charging the customer for something that has cost the retailer nothing, then yes.
            There is no doubt that the RET is an incentive scheme to invest in renewables. What I objet to is your and other description of it as a heavily subsidies scheme, because the evidence shows it needs no subsidy to support the wind and solar farm, but some stick is needed to get the retailers to invest, because otherwise they wouldn’t. And then the retailer hits up the cestomerfor costs real and imagined, as they normally do/

    • Chris Baker 2 years ago

      Hi Ben,

      Here’s some information from the ACCC on this topic.

      Here’s something you might want to take particular note of: “There is much ill-informed commentary about the drivers of Australia’s
      electricity affordability problem. The ACCC believes you cannot address
      the problem unless you have a clear idea about what caused it.”

      If you read the ACCC report you will also see this: “The main reason customers’ electricity bills have gone up is due to
      higher network costs, a fact which is not widely recognised. To a lesser
      extent, increasing green costs and retailer costs also contributed,” Mr
      Sims said.

      Apart from that you might also recognise that South Australia is now a net exporter of power, and keeping in mind that its only connected to Victoria and only exports if its price is less than Victoria doesn’t that make you wonder whats happening? How is it that a state with high renewables can export to a state with high coal generation?

      If you are worried about subsidies you might ask why the NSW government sold off its power stations for a song? Isn’t that a subsidy under a different name? You might wonder about the subsidised coal prices to these generators and what happens when they have to pay market price for their coal?

      • Ben 2 years ago

        Hi Chris, I’m aware of the ACCC report and the various contributors to bill increase. I agree the network over indulging is also to blame.

        However large scale renewable generators get paid twice, both times by the customer, and due to variable output are largely responsible for gas generators having to recoup standby costs during periods of low wind.

        SA is not an overall net exporter of power. In some months it has generated more GWh than it has imported. Lost within that figure are periods where has generation kept the lights on at high opportunity cost. And renewables cannot be excluded from the market so everything else has to make room – that’s why wind power can be exported into a state with majority coal power.

        The remaining NSW generators were sold cheap partly due to end of life and rehabilitation concerns – Bayswater and Liddell. So no, I don’t consider reducing liability a subsidy.

        Subsidised coal? In what way? Hazelwood was closed down about a millisecond after the Andrews government increased coal royalties.

        SA wouldn’t sudsudise Northern for $15m to keep it running.

        NSW sold it’s coal fired generators.

        QLD still owns some, that might be called a taxpayer subsidy.

        VIC power stations were sold off long ago. Although Snowy 2 might be called a subsidy.

        What coal subsidies are you referring to?

        • Chris Baker 2 years ago

          Hi Ben,

          You say that South Australia is not an overall net exporter of power. I refer you to this article

          And in particular this statement: The most surprising of those developments may be the South Australia achievement, which shows that since the closure of the Hazelwood brown coal generator in March 2017, South Australia has become a net exporter of electricity, in net annualised terms.

          To be an exporter it must have cheaper prices than Victoria, and to be a net exporter it must be that its prices must be more often cheaper than they are dearer.

          This is also borne out by the fact that South Australia no longer has the highest prices in the NEM. I don’t have the reference to this at hand but can dig it out if you doubt this.

          This change is also reflective of the general trend in renewable energy costs: they are continuing to go down because the product is produced from serial production which continues to decrease in cost as volume and learning increases. On the other hand coal power continues to increase in cost, so it is quite logical that this effect would occur.

          Its true that customers do pay twice for renewable energy. Once for the purchase of the energy and again, a small amount, 14% of the bill increase I recall, for the subsidy. Most people are quite happy to pay this small increase. As well this subsidy is decreasing rapidly and it was always expected that this would happen.

          Additionally we see that renewable energy reduces the cost of generation and is a major downward pressure on price. So the upfront small increase by way of subsidy will bring an ongoing reduction in generation cost as time goes on. So its a good result for consumers.

          Its also true that customers pay another 86% more for electricity than they should because of the high cost of the distribution, generator price gouging and retailer costs. Retailers deliver no benefit but just add a cost of about 20% over and above what it used to cost for the retail portion of the electricity bill when it owned by the community.

          If you are really concerned about those who have had their power cut off you would be making a case against the aspects that account for the most significant increase to the bill. Instead you try to make a case against RE which contributes only a small increase in the bill and puts downward pressure on generation prices.

          NSW sold its generators with a contract for cheap coal. This subsidises these generators.

          AGL bought Liddell for $1, has made plenty of profit from it, and refused an offer of $250m for just a few weeks ago.

      • Ben 2 years ago

        Chris Baker, i can’t find another post of yours that had some good questions, but I have attempted to provide my response below.

        Hi Chris, thanks for the feedback, I’m always up for a challenging discussion, I find it’s the best way to learn! I’ll try to respond to each of your points accurately.

        SA net exporter: I refer to AEMO SA Generation Forecasts which are used for investment and policy, rather than The Australia Institute, who I often find to be pushing a left-wing political agenda instead of impartial debate on what constitutes best policy.
        There is a modeled scenario in the Dec 2017 report – dispersed renewables – which predicts SA to become a net exported from 2022-23 (page 7).

        Exporter vs prices: the AEMO market mechanism accepts lowest bids first – almost always wind – before the next lowest bid – almost always coal. You can see how the market works on page 24 of the 2017 AER state of the energy market report. The price paid to generators is the average of all bids over 30min, regardless of the individual bids. So you can see that wind, with lowest marginal cost, will always be accepted with a low bid, and will always receive the greatest relative profit margin. You can also see that wind reduces the earning potential of all other fuel sources, which must bid ever higher to recoup greater operating costs. The market can be overruled when the grid is at risk and more expensive generation dispatched to prevent blackouts e.g. gas regardless of the price – see also the positive effect of the SA battery in this ancillary services area.
        Then you may want to look up the rules around scheduled, semi-scheduled and non-scheduled generators. Basically scheduled generators are gas, coal and hydro – these can be told exactly what output to produce. Semi-scheduled are wind and solar above 30 MW – these can only be told to limit output within thresholds. Non-scheduled are all types below 30 MW and are not subject to any constraints by AEMO.

        SA not highest prices: The same article you linked above contradicts this claim.

        Customers happy to pay twice for renewable power: I dispute this anecdotal claim with another anecdotal claim, that most people don’t realize the fact that renewables are paid twice.

        Renewables reduce cost of generation: I accept the theory that if a generation portfolio has an average lower fuel cost, the trend should be towards cheaper overall generation cost, and I believe there is evidence for this in the NEM “sometimes”. But, there are undeniable facts that
        – electricity demand exists all the time, while the low cost fuel does not
        – low cost generation is favoured by the market, but it is not penalised when it is not available
        – low cost generation is paid for twice by customers
        – high cost generation is not rewarded for standby cost, even though it is an essential service – note this is related to but separate to the RERT provisions in the NER

        3.1.2 Strategic reserves
        Strategic reserves refers to reserve capacity that sits outside the market to insure against unexpected demand growth and/or reductions in supply. At present, the NEM does not include a strategic reserve mechanism for generation. Instead, market participants may make a commercial decision to maintain reserves within their portfolios to ensure they can meet their contractual obligations.
        Refer to page 11 of the AEMO security and reliability of power system requirements.

        Network costs: I agree, and there are cases where reduced investment decisions have been appealed and increased investment approved by the tribunal. You can read some of the history below.

        Concerns about disconnections: I argue we should all be concerned about electricity disconnections. My argument is not against renewable power technology so much as it is against the way it is subsidised, how it enters the market and how the output is contracted, which distorts the real cost of electricity generation in this country.

        Cheap coal:

        AGL and Liddell:

    • My_Oath 2 years ago

      The price gouging sources are known – the gas generators. But you knew that already and are pretending it is due to the variability (not intermittancy) of renewables.

      • Ben 2 years ago

        Was price gouging a thing 10yrs ago? Not to the extent it has been since wind farms and tax increases reduce shutdown coal and the variability of wind power creates opportunities for gas generators to games the system. Peaks used to be morning and evening. Peaks now depend on the weather.

        • Rod 2 years ago

          I vividly recall being in the control room circa 1998 when the “market” first started and remember the excitement when the spot went to the then max $20,000 MWh.
          Yes we have had gouging since pre RE. Next idiotic comment?

          • Ben 2 years ago

            I’ve been in and out of control rooms since 2003 and just because the price goes high doesn’t necessarily mean it’s gouging.

            I will qualify my original statement: statistically relevant price gouging that materially affects customers.

          • Giles 2 years ago

            haha. Because the actual cost of generation goes to the market cap? Don’t make me laugh so much, it’s too early in the morning

          • Ben 2 years ago

            Of course the generation cost isn’t that high, but there is no incentive market for standby availability either.

            There are some good statistics comparing multiple years of the spot market on WattClarity, I’m sure you are aware.

            Historically it seems there is little evidence of large scale gouging affecting the market until recently.

          • Rod 2 years ago

            “I’ve been in and out of control rooms since 2003”
            I’m guessing with your vacuum cleaner and duster.

            You must have missed the latest AEMO report and follow up article about the 3 days last Summer that “materially affected” customers.
            All 3 were due to extreme weather, just as the one back in 1998, and nothing to do with RE.

        • My_Oath 2 years ago

          Some of it, like FCAS price gouging is a very recent phenomenon. As for the rest of your comment, correlation does not equal causation.

    • Ken Fabian 2 years ago

      No emissions reductions then? No transition to the near to below zero emissions that the climate problem, taken seriously, requires? Usually leaving out the climate problem means you believe there is no climate problem. When every bit of expert advice our governments have commissioned and received says there is and it is a serious, world altering problem it ends up being dangerously negligent to ignore it.

      • Ben 2 years ago

        When the Chief Scientist states to a senate estimates committee that removing Australia’s 1.3% contribution to global emissions would do “virtually nothing” to global temperature and Australia’s electricity sector is 40% of that, I struggle to find value in government intervention in our electricity sector in an activity as pointless as emissions reduction.

        • Giles 2 years ago

          It’s because by virtually nothing he means 1.3%. Most western countries contribute less than 2%, but they think it fair to do their share. If everyone had your attitude, nothing would happen,. which would please climate science deniers like yourself, but not others.

          • Ben 2 years ago

            When you read the question the answer is clear. I have copied the question and answer for you, hope that helps.

            “if we reduce the world’s carbon emissions by 1.3 per cent, what impact would that have on the changing climate of the world?

            Dr Finkel : Virtually nothing.”

        • Ken Fabian 2 years ago

          I suggest you don’t bother with voting; the difference your one vote can make means it pointless.

  2. MaxG 2 years ago

    Sometimes I wish countries were simply boycotting Australian products and services based on not meeting Paris.

    • Rod 2 years ago

      That is the very real risk that many are ignoring. It is OK for tRump to threaten to leave but I’m sure the OECD will lose patience with Australia and if we do leave the Paris accord we will be sanctioned.

    • Joe 2 years ago

      Or trading countries meeting Paris targets just slap a ‘Carbon Price Tariff’ on imports from countries that don’t meet their Paris targets and the Tariff also goes on imports from countries that aren’t a party to Paris. So, if Australia withdraws from Paris on, goes the ‘Carbon Price Tariff’ to our exports. The Climate Emergency demands a global effort that requires all countries to participate, no free loading for recalcitrant countries like ‘Abbottt’s Paris Withdrawal Australia’

  3. Cooma Doug 2 years ago

    I think Abbott is positioning to be next opposition leader. Seems to be a good choice as opp leader. Very experienced wrecker of all things logical.
    So this will see him work against the government just a tad more than the centre right would want.

    I believe that 2030 will see world wide carbon fee attributed to the source of all emmissions. Some places like us and a few other nations will not want to play the game. So our fossils will die a painful ecconomic death.

    I also believe that the technology adopted in power and transport industry will swamp the markets.
    Government might want to prop up the coal and gas but they will be like the horse in the car shop.

  4. Cooma Doug 2 years ago

    A carbon Fee and dividend is what will eventually happen.
    I suggest you all google the term CFD.

  5. Marcelo 2 years ago

    Tomorrow morning millions of Australian motorists will hop in their car, burn a fossil fuel, dumps thousands of tonnes of carbon pollution (and many toxic fumes) and not think anything of it. What do you call that?

    • Carl Raymond S 2 years ago

      Waiting for Tesla.

      • Nick Kemp 2 years ago

        Seems like our default setting. Waiting to buy something from overseas to sort out our lives even if it was invented here in the first place.

    • MaxG 2 years ago

      Welcome to Australia, where we vote for clowns as politicians, where we dismantle anything that benefits society and cheer when it happens and call it progress.

    • Joe 2 years ago

      …’Stupid’ or ‘Suicide’ ? When we all know better, when we all can do better, when we all know that there is a Climate Emergency ( the deniers do know it but have been bought by the vested interests / Big Fossil Fuel) then business as usual makes no sense.

  6. Carl Raymond S 2 years ago

    Nobody in government has explained the rationale for the red tape tangle they call NEG. From the stands, things are going swimmingly. Renewables are capturing the market at a reassuring rate. Rather than fight about a less than useless set of regulations, scrap the bloody thing.

  7. Chris Jones 2 years ago

    Lose all our industry because we are uncompetitive, or pay less for clean, green electricity.

    Tough choice.

  8. RobertO 2 years ago

    Hi All, Just a simple question, “What about Agriculture”?

    Will we pay for a temperature rise, will we pay for poorer supplies as we lose out with summer crops in say the Liverpool Basin or other places as the farmers slow production

    Some of our CC denigers claim that CO2 is not a problem, but coal is also a heat source as they burn coal (and what about all the other pollution).

Comments are closed.

Get up to 3 quotes from pre-vetted solar (and battery) installers.