News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 Cut emissions and make money 

Cut emissions and make money

13 Aug, 2010 08:00 AM
BUSINESS leaders have claimed that Australia and New Zealand could both cut emissions by at least 15 per cent and save money at the same time.

A communique released from the Australia-New Zealand Climate Change and Business Conference lists measures that can be taken in the power, transport, building, forestry and agriculture sectors to lower emissions and improve profitability.

The communique says that less government bureaucracy, improving supply contracts so industry can generate electricity to feed into the power grid, accelerated green depreciation for buildings, and broader energy efficiency measures agreed to by business and government would make substantial cuts to the greenhouse gas emissions of both countries.

Jon Jutsen, executive director of consultants Energetics, said energy efficiency measures across the economy would save business money.

''The Australian economy is only about 10 per cent efficient. This means that 90 per cent of the energy in the fuel we dig up is lost in the supply chain and end uses,'' he said.

Gary Taylor, chairman of the not-for-profit Climate Change and Business Centre, said businesses had opportunities to improve profitably through acting on energy productivity.

A carbon price was essential, coupled with sector-specific measures to combat climate change, he said. ''Australia can learn from New Zealand's experience implementing a price on carbon, and New Zealand can benefit from Australia's experience with complementary measures.''

Mr Taylor said the urgent need for strong leadership by business and government and closer collaboration between them had been a strong theme of the conference. ''While a price on carbon will increase the justification for action, government policy changes are required to maximise carbon mitigation.''

A poll of delegates found the most popular emissions reducing measure was energy efficiency (29 per cent). Almost twice as many preferred a cap-and-trade carbon pricing scheme to a carbon tax, but either would need more regulation and funding assistance.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Cut emissions by 30%, 40%, 50% who cares? It won’t make the slightest bit of difference. The world has a couple of extra blankets over it right now and the biosphere is getting uncomfortably hot. Those emission percentages are just nit picking about how fast we weave a third blanket. What we have to do is remove those first two blankets. I have been saying for twenty years now, we have to pay our farmers to suck that excess carbon dioxide out of the air by converting plant material into carbon rich soil humus. At last and thankfully, the Coalition have promised to do just that. They will pay any farmer $10 a tonne for all the CO2 he can convert into soil humus. And job’s done. Alternative energy to fossil carbon can follow later. Sadly, the people you are quoting are experts in how to live with the problem, not fix it.
Posted by Allan Yeomans, 14/08/2010 10:08:51 PM

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
11 August, 2010
12 August, 2010
POLL
Q: Have your voting intentions changed as a result of the election campaigning?

No change
(54%)

Yes - more likely to vote Labor
(7.4%)

Yes - more likely to vote Coalition
(31.6%)

Yes - more likely to vote Green
(7.1%)

Total Votes: 693
Poll Date: 08 August, 2010

Most popular articles

Advertisement



Stock & Land







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...