Dr. Ann Maest is a managing scientist at Straus Consulting, and she's the go to expert on all things groundwater. In the press release announcing her reappointment to the National Academy of Sciences, they mention that she is focused on the environmental effects of mining and petroleum extraction and production, and, more recently, on the effects of climate change on water quality.
Maest is in high demand as an expert for those looking to stop oil and mineral exploration. She's also heavily used by the federal government, even though after new details about her past work are coming to light as a result of a lawsuit. From The New York Times:
An environmental consulting firm named as a defendant in a racketeering suit filed by Chevron Corp. over a landmark pollution lawsuit in Ecuador is continuing to work on another blockbuster case: the Deepwater Horizon oil spill investigation.
Boulder, Colo.-based Stratus Consulting, a long-term contractor with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and other federal agencies, is gathering and analyzing data concerning the Gulf of Mexico spill.
Chevron has is suing those behind the Ecuadorian case including: the lead attorney Steven Donziger; Stratus Consulting; and Maest. As part of their lawsuit, Chevron obtained through discovery, outtakes from a documentary called "Crude" that show Donziger and Maest colluding ignore their own findings and make up some new unsubstantiated claims. Watch this:
Maest says that in their study contamination has not spread and is only found at the site of the pit. Donziger says let's just extrapolate and say what we want. Maest readily agrees. Donziger goes on to say that it's Ecuador and if they have 1000 people around the court house they win, the report is just smoke, mirrors, and bullshit.
Of course when you're endeavoring to pull off a multi-billion dollar legal heist in a banana republic you don't stop at just inventing damages; you stack the deck on the judicial side as well, since that just requires a little "donation." What Chevron has been able to show from the outtakes and records obtained is the Maest and her firm drafted substantial portions of the report of the independent expert, Richard Cabrera, who they allege Donziger was instrumental in getting appointed to do the court order study of the alleged environmental damage. Sounds like a criminal enterprise to extort, right? That's what Chevron thinks, and it's why they're suing under RICO.
In addition to being sued, Maest's work (if that's what you want to call it) was thouroughly debunked by another team of scientists.
It is hardly a surprise that Donziger is an old Harvard buddy of, you guessed it, President Obama. What's really surprising is that here we have a National Academy of Science member caught red-handed agreeing to make up data, and our government wants to give her more business.
SOURCE. (See the original for links)
What a laughable "deal". The Durban agreement was an agreement "to launch negotiations"
They've already been negotiating for years! Warmism is definitely a sinking ship
After two weeks of gruelling negotiations that threatened to collapse in the final days, the 194-party climate conference in South Africa agreed to launch negotiations for a new global climate agreement by 2015, to come into effect by 2020. The Kyoto Protocol was also thrown another lifeline, with an agreement to establish a second commitment period under it for the period 2013 to 2017.
For seasoned observers of the negotiations, this was a case of deja vu. The Bali conference in 2007 had launched a road map for a legally binding treaty including all major emitters to be signed at Copenhagen in 2009. However, that mandate was unfulfilled, primarily due to differences between the US and China.
The Durban conference represents a renewed effort to bring about a slow sea change in the climate negotiations away from a rigid divide in the obligations between developed and developing countries (embodied in the Kyoto Protocol) and towards a broader-based treaty that includes all the major emitters. This should not be interpreted as a vindication of the US's position, given the renewed commitment to Kyoto.
China and the Group of 77 developing nations had made it clear that a second round of commitments by developed countries under the Kyoto Protocol was a condition precedent for any future global agreement.
For those concerned about climate justice, Kyoto is not just a protocol but also a symbol of the core burden-sharing principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and capabilities laid down in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. These principles cast a leadership obligation on developed countries in recognition of their greater cumulative and per capita emissions, and their superior capacity to pursue mitigation than developing countries.
The US had insisted it would not commit to any agreement that did not include major emitters, since stemming future growth in emissions in countries such as China and India was essential if the climate regime was to be environmentally effective. These arguments now find strong support among developed country parties. However, the continuing blind spot in the US argument was the assumption that the problem is now largely one of maths, rather than morality.
This became clear in a heated session when a draft text was presented that excluded the hallowed principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and capabilities. In an impassioned speech, Indian Environment Minister Jayanthi Natarajan drew a rare standing ovation in declaring that developed countries should not point the finger at developing countries while walking away from their leadership obligations ''without even a polite goodbye''. She highlighted the tiny per capita carbon footprint of Indians, and India's high vulnerability to climate change.
She also drew attention to her government's promise that India's per capita emissions would never reach the same levels as developed countries, and that the Copenhagen pledges of developing countries amount to more mitigation than developed countries. She made it clear that there would be no future deal without a clear commitment to the convention's burden-sharing principles.
With the Kyoto Protocol due to expire at the end of 2012, leaving only a set of non-binding Copenhagen pledges by parties to reduce emissions by 2020, failure at Durban would have seriously eroded the legitimacy and effectiveness of the United Nations negotiations.
It was the EU that shaped the Durban compromise with a promise to accept a second round of emission reductions under the Kyoto Protocol only if the so-called BASIC group - China, India, Brazil and South Africa - agreed to a road map for a new legal agreement by 2015.
Yet the so-called Durban platform represents a delicate and artfully worded compromise that papers over divisions that will continue to stalk the negotiations, including the level of ambition of mitigation pledges.
NOAA Confirms Obvious, Embarrassing Climate Science Failure: U.S. Cooled Over Last 15 Years
Predicted warming of continental U.S. by climate "experts" is proven to be robustly wrong
US Temps Nov 2011
Global CO2 emissions 2010
As the Climategate2.0 emails continue to establish, the alarmist climate scientists claiming "unprecedented" and "accelerating" global warming actually can't find either. When examining the global temperature trends, it is clear that global warming has actually been missing for the last 15 years. This has definitely been the case of the continental U.S., as the graph on the left depicts. (click on to enlarge)
And, as the chart on the right depicts, this "global cooling" of the U.S continues in spite of growing CO2 emissions. Human CO2 emissions continue to grow at a business-as-usual pace with a record set in 2010 for the largest emissions ever.
The NOAA/NCDC chart on the left represents the 15 years (180 months), starting December 1, 1996 and ending November 30, 2011. Per these latest U.S. official temperature data records, the 12-month period ending November was the 5th coldest November-ending period for the last 15 years.
In terms of a single month, November 2011 was the 25th warmest since 1895 (November 1999 was the warmest).
The per century cooling trend of this period, a minus 4.6°F, took place despite the huge warmth produced by two large El Niño events during this 15-year span: 1997-1998 and 2009-2010.
For the 10-year period ending November 2011 (December 1, 2001 thru November, 2011 - 120 months), the cooling trend accelerates to a very significant minus 8.9°F per century rate - again, per the updated NOAA/NCDC temperature records.
Please note: The linear temperature trend, as shown in the NOAA chart, is not a prediction.
SOURCE (See the original for links)
China's Global Warming Ploy- Not a Change of Heart, Change of Strategy
Following the failure in Copenhagen and Cancun, no one expected much from the UN’s seventeenth year of climate talks that took place during the past two weeks in South Africa. However, the sluggish conference got a jolt of excitement when China teased that they might agree, after sixteen years of disagreement, to sign a legally binding deal for reducing emissions.
China’s softening position escalated enthusiasm at the United Nations Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP17) with news coming out stating that negotiators “were steps closer to an agreement on combating climate change” and “Agreement on emissions reduction appears near.”
COP17, according to The Economist, was “more about saving the circus” than “saving the planet.” Regarding the event, the Wall Street Journal declared that it “appeared destined to end as a well-advertised convention of environmental officials and activists swapping strategies on creating new national parks and shuttering old coal-fired plants.” But that was before China’s changing rhetoric—and rhetoric it was.
China’s shift came with a “laundry list” of pre-conditions that meant they never really had to change their position, while appearing to be promoting environmental policies.
Since 2007, China has been the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases. Because of their status as a “developing country,” they have avoided participating in legally binding emission cuts such as the Kyoto protocol. Their main concern is the ability to grow their economy—believing that it would be unfair to limit their emissions “while rapid development is lifting millions out of poverty.”
After years of appearing more concerned about being exempted from the rules than about global warming itself, why would China suddenly change its tune? Have they had a true change of heart, or just a change of strategy?
Christiana Figueres, the UN’s senior climate official, said, “Clearly, they seem committed to dealing with the issues and making a contribution.”
Yes, they do want to make a contribution, but the contribution is to their rapidly growing economy.
Despite the Wall Street Journal’s comment about COP17 being “well-advertised,” few even knew it was happening. Those who did expected little. Even Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary general, tamped down expectation by saying that “grave economic troubles” may make a new climate treaty, “beyond our reach.” Even the EU, “doubts China’s credibility” and “will not agree to a new phase of the Kyoto pact unless the conference agrees on a road map to a broader global deal.”
From the public’s perspective, global warming is of little concern.
A public who doesn’t care about global warming and a lack of a global pact to cut CO2 emissions is death to the solar panel industry, as it is “deeply driven by government policies”—and who is the leading manufacturer of solar panels? None other than China!
As news of solar failures like Solyndra and Evergreen have become late-night television fodder, and the high cost of the solar-generated electricity and excessive land use/habitat destruction, have become widely known, China fears losing its market—leaving them stuck with all those solar panels. It, suddenly, after sixteen years of disagreement, becomes in China’s best interest to make a “contribution” to the global climate change debate.
China needs the climate change debate to rage on. The market for solar panels depends on the fear, uncertainty, and doubt generated by the advance of the theory that global warming is caused by humans burning fossil fuels.
Most people, even the few who are concerned about climate change, have no idea that solar panels require rare earths and that China produces 97% of the world’s rare earths—though America has them in abundance.
Since 2007, China’s exports of rare earths have declined 54%. They have clamped down on illegal mining—which reduced production, increased internal consumption, and increased tariffs on sales to other countries. Economics 101: less supply equals increased price. China’s control of rare earths allows them control of the solar-panel—not to mention wind-power—manufacturing market. American producers can access the needed rare earths without tariffs if they move the manufacturing plants to China—thus creating jobs in China.
China needs the fear, uncertainty, and doubt to fester. It sells solar panels. It makes electricity more expensive for its competitors (particularly the US)—electricity that is essential to manufacturing. More jobs go to China. American is less competitive, China is elevated.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, instead of building on our strengths, the EPA is trying to regulate America’s abundant energy sources out of existence. The State Department delays a steady energy supply from a friendly source. The BLM and Forest Service are doing all they can to block natural resource extraction, and the Fish and Wildlife Service is allowing supposed endangered species to thwart or deny domestic energy development. The DOE is pouring taxpayer dollars into renewable energy.
America is suffering “grave economic troubles.” By supporting the man-made climate change theory, we are supporting China—diminishing America, elevating China—instead of building on our strengths.
The Department of Defense knows a rare earths shortage creates a security crisis, as they are used in all computers and guided missile systems, jet engines, radars and stealth technologies —not just an energy emergency (in addition to use in renewables, lanthanum is used in oil refining and gadolinium can be used as an artificial frac sand). America has rare earths in California, Wyoming, New Mexico, Nebraska, and several other states. California’s Mountain Pass mine is coming back on line. Access to the fourth largest rare earths supply, Wyoming, is in the permitting process. If we could accelerate and streamline the permitting process, America could dominate the market and help tip the trade balance.
The tax-payer subsidies for renewable energy (section 1603) are due to expire at the end of this month—subsidies that ultimately help China’s economy and raise our energy prices. Public pressure on Congress can end these subsidies and help our “grave economic troubles.”
The Kyoto protocol, “the world’s only binding agreement to curb emissions has been a colossal failure.” Canada, whose economy has recovered, says, “Kyoto is the past.” Developing nations, such as China and India, have refused to sign on due to the economic necessity of affordable energy (hint: economies grow with abundant, affordable and available energy). Yet, China “continues to insist that industrialised countries must sign up”—as long as China doesn’t have to pay.
When it comes to climate change, China has not had a change of heart. They have had a change of strategy. It’s about “saving the circus.”
"Green" BBC fakery
It was the BBC's landmark wildlife documentary that was four years in the making and took intrepid cameramen to the edge of the Earth to film. But now it's been revealed the method used to capture key scenes might send a chill down the spine of Frozen Planet viewers.
Instead of being filmed in their sub-zero natural habitat, the BBC has admitted a polar bear and her cubs that were the centrepiece of the show were caught on camera in a zoo.
The breathtaking footage was watched by more than eight million viewers left out in the cold when it comes to what the BBC did. It showed a polar bear tending her newborn cubs in fake snow and was mixed with real Arctic shots with zoo scenes.
The scene was filmed last Christmas from the comfort of a German wildlife park enclosure made of plaster and wood. Situated beneath the zoo's polar bear enclosure, the den was fitted with cameras shortly before the cubs' birth.
Documentary makers have been accused of misleading the audience into believing the footage was gathered by daring cameramen in the wilderness.
How the moving scene was filmed is explained by producer Kathryn Jeffs in a hard to find clip on programme's website. She said it would be impractical to film the carnivores in the wild, adding: 'They stay in the pole through the winter and the female polar bears actually give birth at the peak of winter. 'The problem for us is that they do it underneath the snow in these dens of ice and there's absolutely no way we can get our cameras down there.'
But during the show Sir David Attenborough's script failed to explain how the key scene was made.
A BBC spokeswoman said today: 'This particular sequence would be impossible to film in the wild. 'The commentary accompanying the sequence is carefully worded so it doesn't mislead the audience and the way the footage was captured is clearly explained on the programme website.'
Yesterday chairman of the Commons culture, media and sport committee, John Whittingdale, said it was 'hugely disappointing' viewers were misled. He said: 'My view has always been that all broadcasters should not seek to give viewers a false impression and it is much better if they are entirely open.
'If this was not filmed in the wild it would have been much better to have made that clear in the commentary. 'It's questionable how many people would visit the website and find the video clip which explained the circumstances of the filming.'
More than eight million viewers tuned into the fifth episode from the £16million seven-part series on November 23. It began by showing genuine footage of a male polar bear scavenging for food during the harsh Arctic winter.
UK green targets may get tougher... but renewable energy 'still won't keep lights on'
Under a climate deal announced in South Africa after days of negotiations, world leaders agreed a ‘road map’ for all major countries to introduce legally-binding targets to tackle global warming for the first time.
But the world’s biggest polluters – including the U.S., China and India – will only have to start cutting their greenhouse gases ‘from 2020’ and it is unclear how stringent the targets will be.
In return the EU has agreed to negotiate even more ambitious curbs on emissions, which could see green taxes on energy bills rise to fund a new wave of wind farms and solar panels. Currently they cost £90 per household a year in the UK.
The Government will thrash out the details of a second period of the Kyoto Protocol next year, but it is likely the current target of reducing emissions by 20 per cent by 2020 will rise to 30 per cent. Officials said yesterday that if agreed, Britain’s share would be a 42 per cent reduction on 1990 levels in only eight years, to replace the current target of 34 per cent.
It will require ramping up existing green measures which already include plans to build up to 32,000 wind turbines onshore and offshore.
And no sooner was the ink drying on the agreement than a report from the Adam Smith Institute questioned the effectiveness of renewable sources of energy.
The analysis by the right-wing think-tank claims wind turbines and solar panels cannot replace gas, coal and nuclear power because the energy they produce is intermittent and depends on the weather.
‘The UK’s plans for renewables are unrealistic, and these technologies cannot provide the secure energy supply the country needs,’ it says.
‘Present policies will lead to an energy crisis by the middle of this decade.’
To meet current targets for wind power would require five turbines to be installed every working day until 2020, it says. More damningly, the analysis found renewables only achieve ‘modest’ cuts to greenhouse gas emissions as they require so much back-up generation.
Britain currently produces 6.6 per cent of energy from renewables but has a target to increase this to 15 per cent by 2020. The report claims solar and wind energy have ‘no prospect of being economically competitive’ as the market is ‘rigged’ by subsidies.
GREENIE ROUNDUP FROM AUSTRALIA
Three current articles below
British climate retreat unnoticed by Australian journalists
In July, the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, wrote to his Australian counterpart, Julia Gillard, supporting Labor's legislation to introduce a carbon tax leading to an emissions trading scheme on July 1 next year.
Ostensibly, Cameron's letter was one of praise for Gillard. However, the subliminal message was one of criticism of the [Australian] Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott. Needless to say, the Cameron missive was much used by Labor to discredit the Coalition. Also the Canberra press gallery, which overwhelmingly supports Gillard and opposes Abbott on the carbon tax issue, made much of the letter.
Little mention was made of the fact that the climate change policy of the Conservative/Liberal Democrat government in Britain entailed a review in 2014. The message was that Britain would scale back its climate change abatement policies if it found itself to be out in front of other European Union nations. This reflected concern about the plight of Britain's chemical, steel and manufacturing industries.
The review scheduled for 2014 has been brought forward in the light of the economic situation. This was made clear in the Autumn Statement delivered in the House of Commons by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, last month.
Osborne expressed considerable concern about the impact of "green policies adopted not just in Britain, but also by the European Union, on some of our heavy, energy-intensive industries". In an emphatic declaration, he added: "We are not going to save the planet by shutting down our steel mills, aluminium smelters and paper manufacturers. All we will be doing is exporting valuable jobs out of Britain." He added that such a policy will not achieve environmental goals and that "businesses will fail, jobs will be lost and our country will be poorer". As the saying goes: hear, hear.
Now, it is understandable that the likes of the Prime Minister, Wayne Swan and Greg Combet do not want to draw attention to the change in direction in Britain. But journalists and commentators using the Cameron letter against Abbott have no such excuse. They are supposed to be reporting news, not barracking for causes.
The reason for Britain's change of direction on climate change is obvious. Osborne warned "much of Europe now appears to be heading into a recession caused by a chronic lack of confidence in the ability of countries to deal with their debts".
I have just returned from a series of meetings in Britain and the US. Without exaggeration, the mood about the world economy is one of deep pessimism. It is difficult to see how the economies of Europe can recover in the immediate to medium future. Moreover, the collapse of the euro remains a real possibility, since the existence of a single currency for a majority of EU nations has come into conflict with the fact that Europe is not a political entity.
A single currency works in such federations as Australia, Canada and the US. It does not - and cannot - work in such an entity as the EU.
Interviewed by Charles Moore in the London Telegraph this month, the former European Commission president Jacques Delors declared that the failure of the single currency turned on the fact that the EU had not created common economic policies "founded on the co-operation of the member states".
Delors is a retired bureaucrat. The fact is that, as Theodore Dalrymple has argued in his polemic The New Vichy Syndrome, the EU was established "against the wishes of most of the populations involved".
The economic disaster that is contemporary Europe will have knock-on effects on the global economy, including on such key players as the US and China. Another recession in Europe could imperil the re-election of the US President, Barack Obama, in November, even if the rival contender is the Republican Newt Gingrich. Advocates of action on climate change in Australia invariably point to California's embrace of an ETS. They rarely state that California is bankrupt and that the Obama administration has effectively junked its own cap-and-trade proposal.
In the US and now Britain, grim economic news has led to a reassessment of climate change policies. Not so in Australia, where, by mid-2012, there will be a carbon tax - something none of our competitors will have in the foreseeable future.
Gillard presides over the first government in Australian history which has consciously decided to disadvantage the nation with respect to its competitors - in the short term, at least. In Britain, Cameron was once committed to such an agenda. This appears to be no longer the case. Perhaps Osborne should write a letter to Gillard or Swan explaining why.
Former Australian Prime Minister supports climate skeptics
FORMER Prime Minister John Howard has launched a controversial book teaching students to be climate change sceptics.
Climate change sceptic Ian Plimer's book "How to Get Expelled from School: A Guide to Climate Change for Pupils, Parents and Punters" arms children with 101 questions to challenge their teachers.
It has been billed as an "anti-warmist manual for the younger reader".
Mr Howard attacked the one-sided teaching of climate change in schools. "People ought to be worried about what their children are being taught at school," he said. "It's a matter of real concern".
Prof Plimer said said he had a lot of parents write to him about this topic. "They were saying that their kids are being fed environmental activism at school, rather than the basics of science, which gives them the ability to analyse activist arguments," he said.
The 250-page book includes a list of questions intended to embarrass poorly prepared teachers. Questions include: "Is climate change normal?" and "In the last 100 years, has there been global warming and global cooling?".
"They're questions that kids should be asking of teachers, because if the teacher can answer it means they might know something about the subject," Prof Plimer said. "If they can't, or start to promote ideology, it shows that our schools have been captured.
"Parents are telling me that schools have been captured by a lot of activists and kids are being fed stuff that is not relevant to the real world."
But climate scientists, including the University of Adelaide's Professor Barry Brook, say Prof Plimer is perpetuating contradictions, inaccuracies and misrepresentations of the science.
University of Melbourne complex system scientist Professor Ian Enting claims there are scientific errors, flawed diagrams and missing references in Prof Plimer's book.
John Cook of Sceptical Science, a website designed to explain what peer-reviewed science has to say about global warming, has branded Prof Plimer "a one man contradiction". [The usual Leftist projection. It is Cook who is the one-man contradiction]
Crackdown over roof-top solar scheme blowouts
THE Gillard government will demand the states curb expensive feed-in tariffs that pay households to generate electricity from roof-top solar panels, and review other green schemes that threaten to make the carbon market less efficient.
The Australian can reveal that today's draft energy white paper will commit the government to working with the states to try to harmonise the feed-in tariffs so that they do not impose an "unjustifiable burden" on electricity consumers.
The government is concerned that the feed-in tariffs are cross-subsidised through increased energy costs for those who cannot afford to install solar PV panels and that they are putting pressure on the federal small-scale renewable energy scheme, estimated to cost consumers $4.7 billion by mid-2020.
The commonwealth will use the white paper - to be released by Resources Minister Martin Ferguson this morning - to push for a new agreement from all Australian governments for a review of more than 200 existing emissions-reductions policies that are often inconsistent and already cost more than Julia Gillard's proposed carbon tax.
On top of this, the white paper will push for an agreement that no new measures will be introduced unless they are "complementary" to the national carbon pricing scheme.
The energy white paper, the first since 2004, is expected to canvass the impact of the rise of China and Asia and the mining boom, as well as the geopolitical turmoil in global energy markets. The white paper was originally commissioned by the Rudd government in 2008, but was shelved early last year because of Kevin Rudd's proposed carbon pollution reduction scheme and the federal election.
Today's release comes amid concern about cost-of-living pressures as Europe's debt woes destabilise the global economy and renewed debate over the cost to households of the Gillard government's carbon tax package after the UN climate change summit in Durban.
Mr Ferguson will vow to reinvigorate the energy market reform agenda, working through ministerial councils that report to the Council of Australian Governments. There were about 400,000 owner-occupied houses with solar PV systems installed in the middle of this year, but this is expected to grow to more than 1.5 million by 2019-20.
Mr Ferguson's plan to push for reforms to the feed-in tariffs is likely to be welcomed by energy retailers, who have warned that the state-based feed-in schemes impose administrative costs that are funded by other customers. The Energy Retailers Association of Australia, whose members include AGL Energy and Origin Energy, have argued one national tariff is better and cheaper than various state schemes.
Several states have moved to rein in their incentive schemes to boost solar, but new research released by the Australian Energy Market Commission on Friday warned that consumers faced a "substantial legacy cost" from the feed-in tariffs because they would continue to pay a premium rate for households to supply electricity to the grid for years.
On top of this, the research found that state-based tariffs were having an impact on the future costs of the federal small-scale renewable energy scheme - part of Labor's renewable energy target requiring power companies to generate 20 per cent of their power from renewable sources by 2020 - as energy retailers were forced to buy more "small-scale technology certificates". This, too, will result in higher costs for all consumers.
Today's white paper proposes the government work with the states to "identify opportunities to harmonise micro-generation feed-in tariffs, so that they do not impose an unjustifiable burden on electricity consumers".
This is likely to prove politically fraught for the states, and could revive criticism that the government's enforceable targets for renewable energy generation are market-distorting and costly.
In NSW, Barry O'Farrell's government faced a massive backlash over proposals to retrospectively cut feed-in tariffs. Queensland has capped the size of the systems eligible for the tariff while Western Australian has cut the tariff from 40c/kWh to 20c/kWh and Victoria has closed its 60c/kWh scheme, creating instead a 25c/kWh transitional feed-in tariff to be paid until the end of 2016.
The AEMC research released on Friday recommended that state and federal energy ministers develop a common system for the feed-in tariff schemes.
The state-based schemes are wildly inconsistent. NSW and the ACT pay households for all electricity generated by the solar panels - not just the power fed back into the grid.Rates vary from 20c/kWh to 60c/kWh while the expiry of the payments to households ranges from 2016 to 2032.
The Productivity Commission has warned solar PV is a very expensive technology, which has cost up to $1043 in subsidies for every tonne of CO2 that is abated and could hold back deeper cuts to emissions. This contrasts with the $23-a-tonne starting price for Labor's carbon tax.
The commission found that the national RET overlapped completely with the state-based feed-in tariffs last year as all power subsidised through the tariffs was also eligible for federal subsidies. The federal government has cut incentives for householders who install solar roof panels in a bid to take heat out of the solar panel market.
The white paper is expected to commit the government to pushing for an agreement by all governments to review all "non-complementary" climate change mitigation measures and to not introduce new measures.
This aims to align the measures with principles agreed by COAG in November 2008 under which greenhouse abatement measures should be targeted at market failures that could not be dealt with by an emissions trading scheme.
A 2008 review of Labor's climate change policies recommended governments rely on an ETS to achieve least-cost abatement and only take extra action in a case of market failure.
For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here