Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

The Kyoto implications for coal: the new challenges

By Ron Knapp - posted Saturday, 15 July 2000


In the context of Kyoto, a GHG target at the country level creates the conditions for a national emissions trading scheme and would replace the need for quotas or government subsidy as the means to encourage market change.

All subsidies and guaranteed market shares (quotas) for renewables within the energy market should be phased-out. This will provide a more equitable policy framework to allow the development and introduction of cost-effective technological change and innovation. The outcome would be based on the real costs within a competitive market, delivering the most appropriate solution for the policy objective (ie the reduction of GHGs).

It is important to identify the real goal of the Kyoto Protocol: not to reduce carbon intensity but to reduce GHG emissions. Reducing carbon is only one solution to achieving this goal – and not always the most appropriate or least-cost option for all countries, now or in the future, given the dynamic nature of technological change.

Advertisement

The debate must also acknowledge/reflect the full life cycle in determining GHG emissions and not just a simple comparison between energy sources at the point of transformation into useable energy. For example, GHG emissions from coal are dominated by the end-use (combustion), whereas natural gas and LNG have a significantly higher level of GHG emissions at other stages of the overall life cycle such as the extraction, production and transmission segments.

There should be no discrimination between fuels – we should not try to judge or pick winners in isolation from the forces of the market in this policy area any more than in other policy areas.

Other market impediments should also be addressed as a priority as these could make a substantial – and in some cases a greater – contribution to solving the issue of reducing GHG emissions. Removal of rail transport subsidies and broader adoption of market-based pricing policies in some countries could see a significant reduction in energy demand.

Coal’s objective should be to encourage the maximum use of voluntary measures, Kyoto mechanisms and effective market solutions. We must maintain the price competitiveness of coal, promote clean coal technology for combustion efficiency and environmental improvements – and encourage cost-effective market solutions if Kyoto targets apply, ensuring access to emissions trading, CDM, JI and sinks is not restricted.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. All

This is an edited extract of a paper resented to the ACA 2000 Conference, Gold Coast, Australia, June 2000.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Ron Knapp is chief executive of the World Coal Institute.

Related Links
World Coal Institute
Photo of Ron Knapp
Article Tools
Comment Comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy