Much of the debate following the government’s flood reconstruction measures has been around the introduction of a flood levy. However, the announcement of the scrapping of green programs to fund a part of this has gone without comment. Linked to the flood reconstruction measures are cuts to viable government programs providing savings of $3.8 billion over the next five years with $1.7 billion coming from various residential and industry green schemes.
Most people would agree that many of these schemes have failed to deliver. Some programs were controversial from the time of inception, such as the `Cash for Clunkers’ program, that provided a $2,000 rebate for new car purchasers who scrapped their pre-1995 passenger vehicle.
However, I read with interest the cuts to the Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Flagships program. The government has reduced and deferred spending on the CCS Flagships and the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute, announcing savings of approximately $250 million.
Carbon capture and storage is a greenhouse gas emissions-reducing option that involves three distinct steps: capture, transportation and long-term storage. Most of the technologies needed to implement carbon capture and storage are currently available but have not been put together on a commercial scale. The funding would have allowed for this to happen.
My concern is that carbon capture and storage is a big part of the modelling done by Treasury around carbon. So what is the problem with scrapping something that has not been proven on a commercial scale? Treasury reports have stated that carbon capture and storage taking effect from the 2030 onwards. So how can we reconcile an underfunded research program or even a scrapped one when Treasury considers it a part of the carbon solution?
No comments:
Post a Comment