Antinuclear

The RET was not implemented because of some random desire to force businesses to use electricity generated by a more expensive method. It was introduced by the Howard government in 1997 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It was included as part of “the largest and most far-reaching package of measures to address climate change ever undertaken by any government in Australia”.

Thus, if you think climate change is all a bit of a scam driven by the UN and NASA with an assist from the Bureau of Meteorology and a vast majority of the world’s scientists, media and governments, then your position on the need for renewable energy is rather altered.

Which brings us to Dick Warburton, a man who told the ABC in Februarythat he was “sceptical” of “the claims that man-made carbon dioxide is the major cause of global warming”.

Warburton of course says his views had “no bearing on this report at all”. But it is clear that they did, because throughout the report there are logical inconsistencies which have the RET judged against different criteria than its purpose. The review is also founded on the view that renewable energy is something needed only if the demand for electricity requires it…….. the review did not conclude that the RET failed to fulfil its objectives, rather it concluded that the RET’s objectives were irrelevant……..

given we no longer have a carbon price, it would seem the report is putting all its faith in the government’s Direct Action emissions reduction fund (ERF). However, the government has not modelled the cost of abatement under that plan; thus the review’s conclusion that there are “lower cost options” is utterly reckless……..

The reality is that this report didn’t give a stuff about renewable energy, or the reduction of carbon emissions. It cared about the profits of coal fired power generators, laughably suggesting the RET might in time cause their profits to fall so low that they would reduce spending on maintenance.

If the government accepts the review’s recommendations to either close the scheme to new entrants or to severely adjust the cap, it can only do so on the basis that its direct action will achieve the same goals more efficiently.

But to do that it needs to show us the modelling. Otherwise they’re just selling us snake oil. http://www.theguardian.com/business/grogonomics/2014/sep/01/the-ret-review-only-cares-about-coal-profits-not-renewable-energy