There is also talk that the changes to the carbon pricing scheme will see a massive reduction in the revenues that the government was counting on in 2015-2016, with Australian Industry Group chief executive Innes Willox declaring that “It’s fanciful” to expect the carbon price in Europe to hit $29 by then. $29 is where the government expected the price to rise to once it became a floating price, and is what revenue projections were based on.

On the flipside, the move to integrate our regime more tightly with that of Europe’s really looks like the beginning of a proper global collective approach to pricing carbon. One that is sorely needed should progress actually be made towards reducing our overall production of greenhouse gases and ultimately halting the devastating effects of climate change. Perhaps this is more a case of realpolitik, with Labor simply recognising that in an ideal world there would be a floor-price on carbon, but realistically this is not achievable in the short-term and an effective floor price can be achieved through other means. Indeed, by restricting the percentage of permits that can be purchased overseas, and by locking out purchases from developing nations, the government ensures that there is greater integrity in the whole system. Furthermore, by linking our system to that of Europe’s, there will be greater international pressure to keep what we already have in place. Should Barack Obama be successful in the upcoming presidential elections, perhaps we will also see a shift to price carbon nationally in the United States. If that happens, then any promise to roll-back the carbon tax by Tony Abbott and the Coalition will be much more challenging.

Then again, that’s a lot of ifs.

A decision has also been announced to link Australia’s carbon pricing regime to that of Europe’s as well as 3 other nations. The idea is that this will add legitimacy and be the beginnings of global framework for pricing carbon. Some criticism has come that this new agreement will see carbon pricing fall too low to have meaningful impact on decisions made by power-providers, however a counter-criticism is that the governments in Europe will begin to move to limit carbon production further, driving the price up from where it currently sits at $10 per tonne.

What do you all think of his performance? Does Craig look like a clown, or was he making light of all the doomsday hyperbole that’s been tossed around regarding the town of Whyalla? Post your thoughts in the comments below!

A specific activity, like catching a flight, can have its own carbon footprint. It is also possible to approximate the carbon footprint of a person for an entire year. This would be done by adding up the collective greenhouse gases that all of your yearly activities produce, be they caused by the car you use to drive to work, the energy production required to heat and light your home, the power needed to produce the food you eat, and so on. Typically, we calculate a perons’s carbon footprint over a year.

Australia actually has one of the highest per capita carbon footprint in the world, and the highest of any OECD nation. In 2006, our per capita emissions were 28.1 tonnes of CO2 (or equivalent), with only five other counties in the world ranking higher – Bahrain, Bolivia, Brunei, Kuwait and Qatar. Not great company to be in, to be sure. Taking a look at the chart below, we can see that our per capita carbon footprint is twice the OECD average and more than four times that of the world average!

Source: Syed et al. (2007).

One of the primary reasons for the high level of our greenhouse emissions is due to electricity consumption. In fact, we utilise more than 3 times the OECD average – juse take a look at the graphic below.

Sources: IEA (2007a); DCC (2008b).

There are of course many ways of reducing our carbon footprint. Numerous government programs have been enacted to incentivise the installation of solar panels on houses and businesses around the country. Solar power, of course, being completely clean (the production process for the system aside). Unfortunately many of these assistance packages have been rolled back, as ultimately they are not as cost effective as large-scale renewable energy efforts such as solar thermal power plants, and wind farms.

Bangkok’s foundations are rapidly sinking due to erosion caused by yearly floods of seawater. Overpopulation and rising sea levels have been accelerating this process, and one recent UN study found that most of the city will become marshland by 2050.

This proposed design seeks to embrace the change in a Waterworld-inspired city dubbed by S+PBA as “Wetropolis”. Mangroves would serve as natural water filters, as well as supplying fresh oxygen and natural cooling. The filtered water could then be used for shrimp farming. People would live above the water fields in an interconnected network of buildings, walkways and roads.

China might well be wealthy enough to afford such radical changes to their cities. The rest of the world will likely not be so lucky, but might have no other choice. If you think that the cost of acting now to reduce the impacts of human-induced climate change are high (when they are clearly minimal compared to something like the GST), then consider the cost of implementing something like this on a mass scale.

This stored energy allows the plant to fulfil the peak energy requirements of summer long after the sun goes down. The molten salt “battery” consists of 60% potassium nitrate and 40% sodium nitrate and has the ability to retain 99% of the heat energy generated by the concentrating solar power plant for later reuse, and lasts for up to 15 hours. The plant is expected to produce ~110,000 MWh of energy each year, enough to power 25,000 homes. This is the first true 24/7 solar power plant in the world, and a good case study for what is possible.

Check out the video below for more.