Focus on energy

In recent decades we have focused on how we, as a society engage with the environment.

Firstly, I would like to say, eventually we need to source energy from other than fossil fuel, as it is a finite resource, and secondly, what is the correlation between CO² and temperature change.

For example, out of curiosity, back in 2016 I did a regression on CO² levels and temperature using two time frames 1972 to 2002, and 2002 to 2015. The correlation between the two in the first instance was .69, fairly assured that the modelling was ok, not 100% , but within range. However, when I regressed the later time frame, the correlation was .19. Why the difference, and therefore, there must be different temperature drivers other than CO².

This brings me to the current energy debate, and the significant recognition now (with the conflict in the Ukraine) that renewables are not able to provide the energy needs of an advanced society when we need reliable dispatchable power (I read an article last week that the current battery storage in Europe will only keep the lights on for a few minutes). So, why are we driving headlong into this abys in Australia when we have seen the consequences in Europe?

Is it because the driving forces are rent seekers that see an opportunity to extract excessive profits out of those sections of the community that can’t pay? I have said in the past that the drive to renewable energy is that largest transfer of wealth from the poor (lower socio-economic demographic) to the rich since the industrial revolution in the 1800’s.

Why do I say this, as energy gets more expensive (we have seen in Europe that energy costs increase by up to 30-40%) where renewables have replaced dispatchable power generation it impacts mostly on the lower income brackets? Therefore, it is a short jump to the Australian situation where those who are well off are investing in renewable energy and everyone has to pay the price.

As energy is an essential service and all australians have to pay to use. Therefore, it stands to reason that these investors are not doing it from the goodness of their heart, they want a return on their investment. These investors do not mind paying higher energy prices, because they are generally in the hier income brackets or alternatively, they are institutional investors that can afford to pay the additional cost of power or are only interested in profit.

But, what about those families who earn less than the average wage do not own a home, have a second-hand car and are not in the high double income bracket. By the time they pay their rent, car, groceries (depending on family size), school and education, all other taxes and charges, there is not much left over to spend as discretionary expenditure. If we follow Europe’s example and get between 30 to 40% increase in energy a current household spending between $2,000 and $3,000 annually will see their power prices rise upwards of $900 annually. This does not take into consideration the increase in food, utilities, and other products and services where the energy increase is included in the sale price. If this cost in included, total household expenses could rise from between 25% to 35% based on suppliers carrying some of the cost.

This also does not factor in the cost in jobs in our traditional manufacturing and processing industries going offshore. As well as the considerable subsidies provided by government to transition to renewable energy and electric cars.

My question, when will we have a rational debate about energy that is not blinkered by dogma or idology?