Henry Ergas writes in the Australian:
With those “green” schemes remaining in place alongside the carbon tax, it is unsurprising that our electricity costs to industrial users are up to double those in comparable energy-abundant economies. Nor is it surprising that electricity bills account for more than 60 per cent of the cost increases that have hit manufacturing since 2008. And the economic harm that causes is borne for no environmental gain, as any reductions in Australia’s emissions are swamped by growing emissions overseas.
Retaining these policies is therefore indefensible. Of course, that doesn’t imply the risks of climate change should be ignored. But it is increasingly unrealistic to think those risks will be avoided through abatement.
As the Climate Commission’s just-released report on “The Critical Decade” recognises, “if (global) emissions rise through the rest of this decade”, which is surely certain, achieving required abatement will be “a virtually impossible task”.
That means we need the capability to adapt should dangerous climate change occur. But the hodgepodge of distorting taxes, shameful handouts, Gosplan-inspired central planning and Kafkaesque enforcement that is our climate policy does nothing to achieve that goal.
CAP and carbon credits are super expensive because of the E=GREEN movement most of the manufacturing was forced to move as meeting new EPA standards would make the product non-competitive in the market place. The cost of the level of emission controls in the USA was tolerable at first then they just started turning the screws to ratchet up the cost of compliance so now we look at China and India building and operating the factories without any significant pollution controls.
So, now America has lost millions of good paying middle class blue collar jobs and get increased air pollution as the dust from Asia arrives in our air in just a few weeks. The people here lose on both ends as the EPA continues to turn the screws down and now we will be paying 3 or 4 times the current utility costs and getting a less reliable delivery and production system. Brown outs will be common and we will lose food in the freezers?
Just as Texas has discovered when it gets hot the wind dies down and the wind mills only produce about 30% of their design – it is the same sad story with solar – only delivers about 30% of designed outputs. We have three choices for 24/7/365 based load power, gas, coal, nuclear. Coal and nuclear are much less costly.
Technology has just not yet arrived to permit GREEN POWER – unless you can say nuclear is very clean if the Department of Energy would permit the USA to recycle spent fuel rods as France does and Japan does.