Carbon price tug-of-war
Under the carbon price the government will collect more than $7 billion in revenue by encouraging Australians to reduce their emissions, yet at the same it will pay almost twice as much in subsidies to encourage the use of fossil fuels.
If subsidies are greater than penalties, how effective are current policies as tools for changing behaviour? Is it really a case of “polluter pays” or more like “pay the polluter”?
Given the enormous investment in renewable energy taking place in the US and in Europe, other national governments must be determined to drive up the price of their electricity.
[First published by the Australian Financial Review - here]
Either that, or everything Malcolm Turnbull has been saying about the need to keep a 50-year-old power station going until it turns 55 is complete nonsense.
A new ReachTEL poll, commissioned by The Australia Institute’s Climate and Energy Program, asked residents of the electorates of Hunter and Shortland about energy policy, including government investment in coal, renewables and the Liddell coal power station.
Strong majorities in the coal electorates (61% and 57%) preferred government investment in renewables than in coal (32% and 36%).
Question: Which would you prefer the government to invest in, coal or renewables?
HUNTER n. 714
Around the world, governments are recognising the benefits of wide-scale electric vehicle use and are supporting their uptake through policy.
Thanks to its compact geography, Tasmania would encourage people to purchase electric vehicles by providing even just a handful of public vehicle charging stations. This paper explores two options for providing coverage to a large part or most of the state, with three or six charging stations. These options cover the most travelled routes and the most popular tourism areas. They could be built for approximately $1 million or $2 million respectively.