News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 Finance 
 Business carbon caution 

Business carbon caution

25 Jul, 2010 04:44 PM
THE fate of billions of dollars of planned investment frozen by carbon policy uncertainty remains clouded despite the government's latest moves to curb emissions.

While business groups cautiously welcomed Julia Gillard's carbon policies on Friday, big investors in the energy sector said the changes would do little to shift funding towards cleaner fuels.

Under Labor's proposal, all new coal-fired power stations would face new emissions standards and have to be ''carbon capture and storage ready''. The government claims this will send investors a powerful signal to invest in cleaner energy, including gas and renewable power.

But energy sector sources said the policy did nothing to answer the key question hanging over their investment decisions - what, if any, carbon price to factor in.

The Liberal Party is promising to reduce emissions through improved energy efficiency and better land-management practices, but has ruled out a carbon price either by way of a trading scheme or a carbon tax.

A report this week from the Energy Supply Association of Australia said policy uncertainty had already caused power companies to slash $10 billion off their spending plans for the next five years.

The Investor Group on Climate Change, representing fund managers holding more than $600 billion, said Friday's changes would only ''marginally'' affect investment decisions until there was a clearer policy.

"In terms of driving significant investment into low-carbon technologies, or allowing investors to price emissions risks into their portfolios, clearly we are still in a period of waiting," said chief executive Nathan Fabian.

The big listed utilities, Origin and AGL, echoed their previous calls for greater clarity through an emissions trading scheme. More broadly based business groups welcomed the chance for further discussion, but stressed the need for greater certainty in carbon policy.

Business Council of Australia chief executive Katie Lahey said that while elements of Labor's policy were ''useful'', the party needed to show leadership and provide lasting solutions.

"The ALP's commitment to building community consensus is constructive," she said. "However, in this complex policy area, long-term solutions that balance Australia's economic and environment considerations will only come through strong political leadership."

Energy Supply Association of Australia chief executive Brad Page said the measures, including $1 billion over 10 years to connect remote renewable energy projects, were ''sensible policy''.

But he said that without both major parties being aligned on climate policy, uncertainty would continue.

However, ANU climate change economist Professor Warwick McKibbin said the government had adopted an ''asylum-seeker approach to climate policy''.

He said climate uncertainty would be felt ''right across the economy''.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
My uncertainty comes from the likes of McKibbin's statement. Not from a lack of govt policy on climate change or carbon pricing or emissions trading. The longer they leave well alone the more certain I will feel. Hopefully they will see the folly in getting involved before too much longer and move on to more sensible and rational issues - like for example how to implement a plan to bring excess monsoonal rainfall down into the Murray Darling basin. A plan that will be for the benefit of all Australians.
Posted by daw, 25/07/2010 7:33:18 PM
Billions of dollars to be spent on coal fired power stations frozen; that’s good news, not bad. The uncertainty complaints all come from the gas and coal power industries and their lobby groups, Google who’s complaining. It’s sickening. They’re so “noble” so happily support solar, wind, wave and tidal energy projects because they know they’re no threat. It’s nuclear energy that’s cheap and safe and totally greenhouse gas free. And that scares them. So their antinuclear public relations campaigns power on. Their funds and lies flow freely to the “green” parties and “environmental” groups. I say; why don’t we put just 2 cents a kilowatt loading on fossil fuel power production and give it to any non fossil fuel power system for say twenty years. Carbon dioxide power emissions would drop to zilch. Gillard’s idea that you can build as many coal plants as you want just so long as the chimney has a coupling to hook it to some future magic carbon dioxide collector is a giant joke. So make them pay the 2 cents and let them have it all back when they get their “Carbon Capture and Storage” up and running. They claim it’s all feasible. So fine; let’s call their bluff.
Posted by Allan Yeomans, 26/07/2010 8:18:12 AM
Of course there is uncertainty. The prospect of being governed by a bunch of spaced out climate bimbos who are perfectly capable of trashing a good solid economy tends to do that. It is the grossest economic stupidity to be taking action that destroys the value of existing megaproject investments like power stations before they have served their useful life. Fine, provide incentives for new, non-carbon power generation, but only as and when they are actually needed. Applying price punishment to existing investments is just an economic version of human sacrifice. And just as senseless. So get used to "uncertainty" folks. It will be with us for as long as swing voting bimbos from barbie world continue to be stooged by the climate mafia. Reject Labor and the Greens and you can have all the certainty you want.
Posted by Ian Mott, 26/07/2010 9:18:26 AM
The whole global warming- rebranded climate change is a hoax. Greedy bankers want income from doing next to nothing to pour in. Carbon capture has been a failure in Scandinavia. CO2 is an important plant food.
Posted by Len, 26/07/2010 10:43:44 AM
When major global corporations are demanding certain things, get suspicious. Why is it that all the global bankers, major industrial CEO's, and financial traders are such huge "Green" supporters?? A conundrum within an enigma within a riddle? On the face of it, the Greens wish to dismantle half of industry, stop mining, and have us all live in caves. No, it's simple - no riddle here - underneath the whole scenario there's scheming to produce an almighty fear of the unknown, the great universal threat, that must be contained by commencing schemes that only benefit global bankers, industry and financial traders - not the people. The Chicago Climate Exchange is already 6 times the size of the regular share trading market, and few ordinary people even know of its existence, let alone understand how it operates. The CCE is just one of the massive wealth increase tools for the already wealthy, that we will see forced on us highly taxed peasants, by "Greens".
Posted by Ron N, 26/07/2010 11:43:00 AM

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
22 July, 2010
23 July, 2010
POLL
Q: What is the issue of most concern to you when deciding how to vote at this election?

Health
(13.2%)

Education
(3.2%)

Climate change
(11.5%)

Infrastructure
(18.1%)

Agricultural policy
(39.8%)

Other
(14.2%)

Total Votes: 620
Poll Date: 25 July, 2010

Most popular articles

ELDERS NEWS MREC FW



Queensland Country Life







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...