totally agree that we should all be doing our part to reduce energy consumption - myself i've already managed to reduce my household average power consumption from 13kWh/day to around 10-11kWh/day, simply by identifying appliances with large standby consumption and switching them off, replacing halogen downlights in frequently illuminated areas with LED downlights (living room, hallways, etc), and turning off the beer fridge in the garage (only using it when i have a party now).
I also only use aircon when i REALLY need it - otherwise a fan, open doors and windows and feel the breeze.
Im sure that there are soooo many other households that could save even more elecricity with such simple methods as i have done.
As they say - the greenest watt is the one you dont have to generate.
How best to make those changes when a competitive market, not governments, provides us with power? You guessed it - provide a carbon price signal to the market so they can work out the best way of reducing emissions. This is exactly what a carbon price does - it changes the methods of energy production in Australia.
Yes, it does.... but if the govt were truly serious about this, they would open up the other option - nuclear.
Gas is better than coal, yes, but its still pretty bad on the CO2 emissions. Eventually, carbon tax would rise, and even gas would be uneconomical.
Yes - a carbon price works by switching fuels to less carbon intensive ones, reducing demand for carbon intensive goods and services, which are incredibly cheap at the moment. There is nothing wrong with doing less unnecessary stuff, although the impost on personal movement is likely to be pretty negligible at the numbers being talked about.
OK cool, in theory I agree that it does work.... but what are the alternative less carbon intensive solutions for food and agriculture? Breed cows that dont emit methane (seriously, i dont know the answer)?
What about transport - cant really do too much there for logistical transport i would think, as there arent that many lower carbon emitting options. Biofuels still emit CO2, and at the same time rob us of land to grow food for consumption. Yes i agree with fuel efficiency requirements for cars to be improved, but how much effect does that really have? Public transport would be awesome... but we all know how well thats going in sydney!!
As for electricity generation.... yes, the theory goes that by increasing the cost of high carbon emission generation it will force the switch to lower emission options..... but as the end user of electricity, i will be the one paying for it - and how do i get a say in how my electricity is generated??
That is the choice that the electricity generators get to make - and at the moment their choices are:
- coal (high Co2)
- gas (slightly less, but still a lot of CO2)
- wind (requires too much land to be a majority generation method, but still a good ancilliary method IMO)
- solar (expensive)
- hydro (we dont have enough water as it is)
To me the big one missing there is Nuclear. Instead of building a gas turbine, or a new coal station... build nuclear. Fuel prices are stable, and generation costs are pretty stable. Carbon emissions are near zero. Australia is a geologically VERY stable country, and we have a lot of the necessary fuel.... so why dont we honestly look at this option?
Just cos some people are scared of the nuclear boogeyman.
P.S. sorry i havent responded to your other points.... only limited time to post and not enough time to respond in full.