New standards on energy ban inefficient options
Matthew Franklin, chief political correspondent | The Australian | July 03, 2009
INEFFICIENT hot water systems will be phased out and all appliances will be properly labelled under new national energy efficiency standards as part of a 10-year energy efficiency plan adopted by the Council of Australian Governments yesterday.
And state and territory leaders have also agreed to streamline and harmonise processes for building applications to reduce red tape and costs for developers.
While much of the focus at COAG was on indigenous affairs yesterday, the leaders continued with a rolling agenda of other reforms, including energy efficiency measures that they expect will make a significant impact on carbon emissions.
Measures to improve the energy efficiency of appliances are expected to reduce emissions by the same amount as would be achieved by removing 4.8 million cars from the nations roads.
The changes will include national legislation for improved labelling and energy ratings as well as a major push to begin next year to phase inefficient electric hot water systems.
From next year, all new homes and commercial buildings will have to meet energy rating standards.
COAG also agreed to accelerate the phase-out of inefficient lighting, beginning with a ban on incandescent light globes to start in November.
Kevin Rudd said last night that energy efficiency was the "low-hanging fruit" of greenhouse gas abatement, with analysis from the International Energy Agency indicating cost-effective energy efficiency improvements could provide savings equivalent to one-fifth of projected global energy-related emissions in 2030.
"Through the combination of incentives, consumer and business education and carefully targeted regulation, the National Strategy on Energy Efficiency will fundamentally change the policy settings for energy efficiency across Australia," the Prime Minister said.
Mr Rudd said the premiers had agreed to continue their program of micro-economic reforms designed to create a seamless economy in which it would be easier and cheaper for businesses to operate across the nation.
The leaders agreed to create a single system of development assessment processes covering all three levels of government, with major nation-building programs to be dealt with by one co-ordinator who would address all approval requirements.
Building codes will be harmonised, with the states agreeing to measure their performance to ensure better approval times.
In a further change to make shipping more efficient, the Australian Maritime Authority will become the single regulator for all maritime safety. At present, it is responsible only for interstate shipping movements.
The leaders also agreed to improve efficiency in the trucking industry by creating a single national heavy vehicle regulator responsible for inspection standards, safe driving hours, mass limits and registration.
Posts
2 comments:
Why energy efficiency regulation is not necessary:
(this relates to the USA but obviously applies to Australia too!)
1. The energy supply is there, and if it wasn't, the resulting price rise would limit the energy use anyway. Any government that is nonetheless worried about energy use (like oil) can themselves simply increase the price of it by taxation.
2. Energy supply and security problems relate to the finite energy sources of oil coal gas, which happen to also be the main CO2 emitters, so their depletion and price rise just leads to replacement with non-emitting nuclear or renewable energy which is welcomed anyway.
3. If energy efficiency succeeds in reducing energy usage, it reduces the cost of oil, coal and gas, which either
• gives a bounceback effect increasing their use, their emissions, and their price, again
• makes a switch to renewable energy more uneconomical to make
4. The failings of emission trading and of allowance handout proposals, has increased the pressure to achieve emission reduction via efficiency regulation instead.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Any reduction of emissions needed is achieved by working directly with electricity and transport sectors (80% of emissions), limiting business disruption and cost to consumers, and letting them buy what they want.
5. Regulation involves product bans for consumption - not product safety - reasons.
Taxation is a superior instrument to lower consumption, raising government income as it does so, income that can fund emission reduction more than remaining product use causes it.
This is helped by inefficient products often being cheap and having relatively short life-spans, like light bulbs: Given 2 billion annual US light bulb sales, the income potential is clearly there, and would be accepted by the public as better than a ban.
However, taxation itself has disadvantages, similar to bans. Direct energy and emission measures remains the best course of action.
6. For consumers, energy efficiency is certainly an advantage that consumers should consider when buying products, but they can and should weigh that up against the advantages that inefficient products always have too - or they wouldn't exist as choices on the market.
(more see http://ceolas.net/#cc2x )
7. Consumers pay for the energy they use. Their demand for energy is no better or worse than their demand for a loaf of bread or a nice shirt, given that the supply is there, and building a power station is therefore no better or worse than building another factory or shop.
We can live in caves and use candles.
We can also look positively at how to supply any energy that is needed, within any emission criteria that needs to be put on it.
8. There are several reasons why efficiency regulation does not give the energy and emission savings commonly suggested, including the simple reason, as shown by research, that consumers would not take care to save on what effectively becomes cheaper energy use.
(more: http://ceolas.net/#cc214x )
(continued)
In turn, the argument that "Carbon emission reduction in electricity production and distribution is too slow and expensive for all concerned, we must also act on consumption, banning products that don't meet defined efficiency standards" doesn't hold up:
1. Because the lowering of emissions from electricity generation and distribution can be addressed in several ways, not all of which need take time, and some of which need organizational skills rather than money.
(more http://ceolas.net/#em1x )
2. Because there are numerous disadvantages to consumers of efficiency-defined bans.
( more http://ceolas.net/#cc211x )
3. Because energy and emission savings from such bans are not as great as assumed anyway.
( more http://ceolas.net/#cc214x)
4. Because -while it should not be needed- appropriate and temporary taxation on products that would otherwise be banned, not only raises funds for relevant environmental projects, it quickly limits and redirects consumption for the time required, with more adaptability regarding scope and application than bans.
(more http://ceolas.net/#gg5x )
Post a Comment