Great Barrier Reef headed for ‘massive death’

The Howard government commissioned the Switkowski report and one of the core findings was that nuclear power wouldn't be viable unless we had a carbon price of at least (from memory) 50c/tonne if CO2e.

When the far right are in favor of a carbon price which is a necessary pre-requite I'll believe they're in favor of maintaining our CO2 emission levels.

You're using "I don't believe in markets" as a justification for not regulating something.

> Secondly, this doesn't obviate the need for additional power - you will still be burning coal/etc. You will use it less as a % of total power output. But if your power output increases (which it will, since most of humanity doesn't have power today), you are still looking at a potential increase.

The potential increase is independent of the percentage decrease. If total consumption doubles while the share of fossil fuels drops from 50% to 5%, total fossil fuel use has gone down. Even if total consumption increases by more, you still have proportionally less fossil fuel usage than you would have with the same increase in consumption and no decrease in the ratio of fossil fuels.

> More cheap power means more use of that power. Imagine millions more tamagotchis, or fans which can be kept running nonstop, or other items which are now affordable because power is cheaper.

You only burn oil when there is more demand than supply, which are exactly the times that price-sensitive users will discontinue their usage.

> However, flight and shipping will remain oil based.

It's possible to use biofuels for this. Also, you can make ships run on anything. Wood, garbage, batteries, wind, plutonium. If it can generate torque, thrust or steam it can power a ship.

> Those consumers need jobs, an effective carbon tax would severely harm growth prospects, and thus job creation in an economy.

You keep saying that it would reduce growth. How is taking billions of dollars that would have gone to unfriendly countries and instead using it to hire a million domestic workers to build renewable energy infrastructure, all while energy prices remain the same or go down, supposed to reduce growth?

If that’s the case I’m doing it wrong, since I believe the opposite. Good regulations with the ability to verify easily make markets work.

>The potential increase is independent of the percentage decrease.

Agree, it’s matter of what the mix is. Higher power gen, with a smaller coal/oil mix in big relative and absolute terms is also. Possibility. I don’t believe it is, but it remains a possible outcome.

>You only burn oil when there is more demand than supply, which are exactly the times that price-sensitive users will discontinue their usage.

I am wary that this will cleave so cleanly.

>It's possible to use biofuels for this. Also, you can make ships run on anything. Wood, garbage, batteries, wind, plutonium. If it can generate torque, thrust or steam it can power a ship.

But those aren’t there yet and oil is still the best and economic option

So change will not come here, without a break through technology.

>You keep saying that it would reduce growth.

Well yes - you are focused only on power. But I’m looking around me and an actual, effective working carbon tax aimed at saving the environment would hit every industry, not just power.

For example most of the products made in my country don’t necessarily come from places that follow regulations.

Working regulations would necessarily make those products more expensive and that would mean many jobs lost, marginal business shut, and and overall increase in costs of goods.

The cost of compliance with just air regulations norms for engines increased the price significantly. This resulted in many hacks or workarounds which harm the engine but superficially match the new norms.

Another example - we recently saw a major city try and ban plastic (yet again), but it would result in many street vendors and stores being unable to package liquid goods.

India is famously cost sensitive, and price advantages often completely override quality advantages. People developed single use washing powder sachets, and created an entirely new market.

But if the cost of carbon cleanup was added to those sachets, they would not be viable products at all.

All of those represent the razor thin margins needed to ensure the economy in india Grows.

There’s no way in our economy, to keep growth and the environment safe.

So while we are moving to alternate sources of power, it’s not stopping the other sources of pollution.