World leaders will gear up for the landmark UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen on 7-18 December. A climate treaty would probably be drafted and agreed upon by the world leaders.
What are the implications of this treaty to the ordinary citizen? This question is not simple. However, whatever the result of the conference will be, it will be intended to reduce carbon emissions to reduce global warming.
Down under, the bill on Carbon Emission Trading Scheme (CETS) costs the job of the opposition leader. The new opposition leader is a die hard against the bill which imposes new taxes to carbon emitters particularly the energy sector.
Coal-powered generating plants has the highest percentage in the energy mix and also the cheapest. Any new tax imposed on the production of power will mean more expensive electricity. This means that the ordinary citizen will be paying more to the amount of same energy consumption. The new carbon taxed imposed on power producers will ultimately be passed unto the consumers. This is the reason why the new opposition down under is against the new bill.
IMHO, instead imposing new taxes, government should try to focus instead on Sustainable Energy. New technologies need to be developed for wind power, solar power, hydro power or even nuclear power if need be.
Currently, sustainable energy is only about 5% of the world's total energy. Worse, the production cost of this type of energy is more expensive that the conventional methods of power generation. If new emerging technologies for sustainable energy will become competitive with conventional power, then the carbon emission tax is not necessary.
Let us wait and see what the world leaders will agree upon on the up coming conference.
1 thought on “Climate Change, Carbon Emissions and Sustainable Energy”
The poor nations who stand to earn billions in free money and technology will be the first to sign the treaty, the ones who will pay will be more reluctant. That’s about all that will happen at Copenhagen.
Also there are lots of statements to consider before signing this thing. For example in the treaty on page 6, it states Ã¢â‚¬Å“As assessed by the UN IPCC in its Fourth Assessment Report, warming of the climate system, as a consequence of human activity, is unequivocal.Ã¢â‚¬Â This statement is false. The UN IPCC report makes no such conclusion. It concludes that warming as a consequence of human activity is “very Likely”. The report does not use the word unequivocal, since it is based on science it can’t use that word. What would the real purpose of this false statement be? I don’t know but any politician who agrees with this statement would be risking his job.
This will be an interesting meeting. Can’t wait.
Comments are closed.