These are my comments and thoughts on issues associated with our collective journey towards a sustainable future.
Yes, that’s right. Too many people were installing too many clean green renewable energy panels. So they brought in the 100k means test to snuff this out.
Garrett’s metamorphosis is complete. He is now just another politician. The best he can offer on World Environment day is a voluntary (read ineffective) energy labelling scheme for TVs. This is totally lame.
Rudd can’t stop subsidising the Australian car industry that continues to build petrol guzzling V6 and V8s and throws more money at them to build hybrids. Why not redirect existing subsidies to this? Freiburg in Germany has shown what can be really done to reduce the reliance on cars.
How many more coal fired power stations will be built under the Rudd government, when we need to decommission 1 per year to meet emission reduction targets?
It didn’t take long for Labor’s “green spots” to fall off after the election.
unbelievable. homeowners being able to afford solar panel installation is supposed to be getting easier not harder!
I agree with you, the 100k limit on the rebate seems to be designed to ensure nobody claims the rebate. The panels are so expensive that a family with an income under 100k is unlikely to be able to afford them now (I know from experience...). My inital reaction was exactly the same as yours. Why would they do this? How outrageous! But I have since had a few nagging thoughts that simply won't go away. - Garret's comment that the program was "too successful" means it was underfunded and they are about to run out of money for this program. This is a budget miscalculation that was probably (I am guessing) inherited from the previous government. However, government has to think carefully what they do with tax payers' money, and just giving it away to individuals because it looks green is not good enough. Unfortunately, solar voltaic continues to be spectacularly inefficient and maybe giving government hand-outs to pricey projects that actually don't deliver the biggest bang for our money is not the best way to go. Now, that is in part because the environmental damage of coal is not priced properly, but that will change if the emissions trading scheme achieves a carbon price which properly reflects the cost of climate change. But it is also a problem that the panels simply are still not efficient enough. Personally, I think the way to go is to ensure good feed-in tarrifs for solar panel owners which would reduce the pay-back period. This is a model that has worked well in Germany.But what I would really like to see is BIG investment in large projects that would deliver huge benefits to everybody, not just a few individuals, such as geothermal and solar thermal plants.On the other hand, I totally, totally agree with you on subsidies for the car and coal industries - they should go!
While solar votaic (PV) appears to be expensive, so is the $1b that the Rudd Government is giving to the coal industry for risky research and development.And the Brumby government plans to spend $400m building yet another coal fired power station in Victoria.Solar would not be regarded as so expensive if we could avoid these expenditures (saving $1.4b), both of which will not reduce emissions. The new power station will actually increase them!I agree that investment should also be be made in large scale geothermal and solar thermal too.
Post a Comment