The level of public misinformation on this whole issue is incredible. I'd guess that no more than 5% of people here (or anywhere else) could explain why replacing the bulbs at home with energy savers actually leads to a slight increase in emissions, not a decrease. Same as they couldn't explain why switching from electric hot water to solar will have zero net impact on emissions either way (assuming coal is used to generate the power).
Anyone game to have a go at answering that question? It's a simple answer that doesn't relate to power station efficiency or anything technical like that. Just about everyone has actually heard the answer already via the media and it's been widely discussed on this forum. It's just that the politics and commercial interests have effectively covered it up in order to profit - and that's my point.
Any takers?
My aim here is solely to illustrate the extent of mass misinformation on this subject.
The answer?
Australia has announced a 5% cut to emissions.
That's it. That's the answer. Here's the explanation:
Each year government will make available the required number of permits (or whatever they end up calling them) to allow the legislated amount of CO2 to be emitted. Those wishing to emit CO2 (eg power stations) need to surrender the required volume of permits in order to do so - no permits = no CO2 emitted.
What happens if we go over the limit? In short, we can't. The market price of the permits soars in order to prevent that happening. There's no more supply at
any price therefore demand (ie CO2 emissions) can't exceed the legislated cap (unless the law is changed).
What happens if we go under the limit? In short, that's very unlikely to occur. The market price of the permits would collapse completely if emissions fell short of the target since supply of the permits is at a fixed rate determined by government. Lack of buyers, same supply = price crash. Now, in that scenario industry is just going to buy permits and not bother cutting emissions, thus putting us back on the CO2 growth path until emissions once again equal the availability of permits.
The end result of this scheme is that, unless we end up with an outright economic collapse, war or some similar scale event that pushes emissions right down then we already know
exactly what our CO2 emissions in 2020 will be. The law tells us that, all we've got to do is look at the number.
So what happens if I cut my energy use at home in half? In short, through the market mechanism, someone else ends up emitting that CO2 instead. There's a fixed volume of permits and it's virtually guaranteed they'll ALL be used.
So by switching to solar (for example) I'm not really cutting emissions - we've already determined what the emissions total will be.
All I'm doing is providing a means of meeting that target. National CO2 emissions will be exactly the same if I disconnect the power or alternatively leave everything running 24/7. All that changes is my share of market demand for CO2 permits - I use more, someone else must therefore use less and vice versa.
Same applies if we build a new coal-fired power plant or alternatively build a new wind farm. We'll need to use things like wind to meet demand for electricity with less CO2 that's for sure, but simply building the coal plant will not of itself increase national CO2 emissions - those emissions are capped at a set level. All it will do is mean that new plant emits x amount of CO2 and something else emits less - the total remains unchanged.
For pretty obvious reasons, those who would like to see a low price for CO2 permits (eg industry) will be very keen to find consumers willingly cutting their emissions and bearing much of the cost. Someone's going to pay and from industry's perspective it's just fine if someone else can either (1) do it cheaply or (2) makes uneconomic decisions that reduce CO2 because they're not aware of how this all works. Even better if you're the one selling the solar panels etc.
And the CFL's? That's a bit more complex but in short:
1. Me using less energy at home merely results in someone else in Australia completely offseting that saving in CO2.
2. The CFL's are generally accepted as more energy intensive to manufacture than incandescent lamps.
3.
Since they are largely manufactured in China, a country not bound by Australia's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme or even the Kyoto Protocol, the emissions from manufacturing are not subject to any form of emissions cap.
4. A + B = C. No change in Australian emissions since they're at a fixed level by legislation. Some increase in overseas emissions due to manufacturing. Total emissions therefore go up.
In and of themselves CFL's do have a lot of advantages and they do save energy. Same with solar HWS, catching buses and lots of other things. Since both manufacturing and consumption occur in Australia (generally) for the solar HWS, it's overall impact is effectively zero - it's a means of meeting a national target but it doesn't change the end result in terms of total emissions.
But when you have a fixed national volume of CO2 emissions, no individual or even a large corporation can in practice opt out. I can't opt out and neither can the likes of BHP. To the extent that one individual or business pollutes less, somoene else will pollute more as a direct result. That's the very basis of how this and all "cap and trade" schemes work.
Now, all this is very open public knowledge. But I'd doubt if more than 0.1% of the population realises that this is what is being done. You may well be encouraged to go solar etc, but all you are doing is providing,
at your expense, the means of compliance with legislation. You aren't saving one gram of CO2 - the total level is set by legislation - but you're helping drive down the cost of CO2 permits for those who need to buy them.
Bottom line is there's nothing any of us can do now. Government has taken the decision out of our hands and decided what the total level of emissions will be. We can't act to cut further no matter how concerned we might be as individuals. Nor can we opt out and pollute.
The only thing we can rationally do is:
(1) lobby for change if we want a different set level of emissions
(2) take whatever action is in our personal best interests (generally a purely financial consideration) in relation to all of this. Use solar and fill the house with CFL's for sure if that's benefiting you financially or in some other way. But just remember that every gram of CO2 you save will simply enable someone else to pollute more - and they almost certainly will.
Me? If I needed to buy a new hot water system then I'd go for a heat pump in my present house. And I do have some energy saving lamps. 10 years ago I would have done it for the energy savings, environmental benefits and to support innovative technologies. The only reason to do it now is if it saves money (which it does, but that's largely due to subsidies in the case of the heat pump - I'm saving money but society as a whole isn't).