Talk:Energy policy of Australia

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

New Energy Policy of Australia page

This page is being established with the first data entered 14 Feb 07. All additions and corrections gratefully received. dinghy 13:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio issues

I am really worried that there is a lot of cutting and pasting going on and therefore copyvio breaches may exist. The topic is worthwhile but ...--Golden Wattle talk 20:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Edits (eg. to NSW by User:Vageesh) seem to be copied directly, formatting does not translate well. There are also inaccuracies in the article: Australia, as a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol. This needs to be written from scratch. RP Bravo 05:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found copied text here and will remove content in accordance with WP:CP. RP Bravo 01:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copied & pasted text from Victorian policy found here. Removing content in accordance with WP:CP. RP Bravo 01:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC). Found the rest of the Victorian part copied from here. RP Bravo 01:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copied & pasted text from Queensland policy found here. Removing content in accordance with WP:CP. I'd also like to note that it is likely policy would have changed, as much of the copied content I am removing is over five to ten years old. RP Bravo 01:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing copied & pasted text from South Australia policy found here, here and here. RP Bravo 02:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing copied & pasted text from NT policy found here . RP Bravo 02:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag

I'm concerned about the slow progress being made with this article. It's been in such a rudimentary state for so long. I've added some material on renewable energy but there is very little coverage of non-renewables. It seems rather one-sided so I'm adding a POV tag to alert readers. -- Johnfos 04:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have brought in a bit more material from other articles, and hopefully there is more balance there now. Have removed POV tag. -- Johnfos 10:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vanshizzle has added a lot of unreferenced facts & figures, or text sourced from Greenpeace articles. The text contains emotive language such as "subsidies for fossil fuels are at an unbelievable 96%", "Sadly, the only subsidy allocated to aiding climate change was 'storage of GHG' with a subsidy of a mere $0.6 million." and "the colossal amounts of subsidies for fossil fuels" - making it inappropriate for an encyclopedia. I am thus replacing the POV tag. The english is also quite bad in places, such as "By reducing the energy costs of these household, they encourage people".... I am also concerned with possible copying and pasting of text. I intended to remove the text, but thought it best to put it up for discussion first. Note, User:Vanshizzle has only made contributions to this article. RP Bravo 08:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before deleting material which has been cut and pasted, please carefully consider whether the material used falls within the "fair dealing" exemption dinghy 08:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)dinghy[reply]

Observations re POV and Copyright

The article got off to a slow start. It is now progressing reasonably rapidly, but it would be good to get more contributors to round the article out.

POV

It would be good to see the language made more neutral and I am sure this will evolve over time. Hopefully the POV tag will then be able to be removed. There is nothing to stop other contributors from working on this aspect of the article to improve the neutrality.

Copyright

The earlier contributions by some users in March were probably a bit naive and there were cuts and pastes of significant extracts from government pages, but there is a "fair dealing" exception to the copyright legislation and we should not ignore it. One way to ensure neutrality is to quote from the actual source and a quote, even a lengthy one, if properly acknowledged, is generally not a breach of copyright. I suggest that deleting for copyright violation ought not be done without discussion, preferably with the contributor or at least on the Talk page and only after consideration of the exemption for fair dealing.

Sources

As to the sources, yes there is an amount of material from "Energy and Transport Subsidies in Australia", but it is not from Greenpeace. It is from an independent institute associated with UTS, a federally funded University in Sydney and is merely work done for Greenpeace, in the same way that the CSIRO did work for the Business Round table on Climate Change, or Access Economics does work for the Federal Government. The more important question is are there errors or omissions in/from the independently researched published report. I have not seen any claims that the numbers used are wrong or contradicted in any material sense by other sources. I expect that over time further sources will added for various statements as that seems to be happening already.

Philosophy underlying recent approach

As to policy, it seems the article as presently structured is evaluating government policy by looking at government interference with the market by subsidy or tax or by allowing externalities ("costs" of an enterprise to be passed on to others without charge by them for accepting those "costs"). Polluting the commons (eg public owned land air or sea) without charge is a common method of externalising costs. (Similarly allowing plundering or polluting of the commons without imposing a charge is a hidden subsidy). In my opinion, this is quite a good way to evaluate the real policy of government, as opposed to merely relying on quotes of politicians. If the money flows in a particular direction, that is probably the best evidence of the actual policy.

My hope is that more people will contribute to the article so that it continues to develop. If I find some time I will try to improve the article.

dinghy 08:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)dinghy[reply]

I believe this article has been significantly improved and expanded since it was rated Start class and it should now be re-rated to B class. dinghy 08:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way that this article is B class in terms of quality. There are five tags in the article which attest to its not being of high standard.
There is too much material from the "Energy and transport subsidies..." report, and this has unbalanced the article. There are other important sources such as Greenhouse Solutions with Sustainable Energy which have useful and up-to-date energy policy info to offer. -- Johnfos 06:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subsidy summary Table suggestion

I've been reading some more of Greenhouse Solutions with Sustainable Energy and notice that subsidies for fossil fuels are summarised in a Table on pages 290-291. This is the type of thing that would be useful here -- a summary Table, with a short discussion, rather than having the issue spread over many sections. -- Johnfos 21:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of anonymous POV tag added without discussion

I am removing the POV tag (dated May 2007) presently near the top of the article. It was added without discussion on the talk page and by an anonymous user. The grounds for it being added are not cited. No evidence is offered to support the assertion of POV. dinghy 08:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of the POV tag was discussed above. This is what was said:
User:Vanshizzle has added a lot of unreferenced facts & figures, or text sourced from Greenpeace articles. The text contains emotive language such as "subsidies for fossil fuels are at an unbelievable 96%", "Sadly, the only subsidy allocated to aiding climate change was 'storage of GHG' with a subsidy of a mere $0.6 million." and "the colossal amounts of subsidies for fossil fuels" - making it inappropriate for an encyclopedia. I am thus replacing the POV tag. The english is also quite bad in places, such as "By reducing the energy costs of these household, they encourage people".... I am also concerned with possible copying and pasting of text. I intended to remove the text, but thought it best to put it up for discussion first. Note, User:Vanshizzle has only made contributions to this article. RP Bravo 08:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the POV tag should be put back. There still is too much discussion about subsidies, and too many other gaps, which unbalances the article. -- Johnfos 08:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of anonymous undated cleanup-rewrite tag added without discussion

I have removed the undated Cleanup-Rewrite tag added to the Fuels section of the article by an anonymous user and without any supporting discussion on this page dinghy 08:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this tag should be replaced too, as it helps editors identify what needs to be done to improve the article. -- Johnfos 08:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ecos article

I read an article recently which made me think of this page, and include a link to it here in case anyone is interested... Energy superpower – or sustainable energy leader Johnfos (talk) 10:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article full of fringe views

One thing I notice about this article is that is full of nonsense. Analyses by Greenpeace and Mark Diesendorf, widely criticised in mainstream sources as being logically and factually flawed, are referenced to provide much of the information. A common alternative view is that Fossil fuels are subject to heavy _net_ taxation in Australia, amounting to tens of billions of dollars annually, resulting in a cross-subsidy _from_ fossil fuels _to_ renewable energy forms.

Although there may be a place in an encyclopedia article for a mention of extreme minority views, the fact that Diesendorf's analysis is presented within the body of the article as though factual, without even a mention of the fact that his analysis is controversial or not widely accepted, is clearly a problem.

POV is too mild a tag for this material, frankly.

Ordinary Person (talk) 02:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited my contribution following a warning that it might be too heavily personal: I have not done this to be dishonest, but to avoid the removal of this contribution.

Ordinary Person (talk) 02:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you to some extent, and have said before that there is far too much emphasis in the article on this report: ENERGY AND TRANSPORT SUBSIDIES IN AUSTRALIA However, I think you are being a bit hard on Mark Diesendorf, who is someone who has taken the time to articulate his views in many refereed journal articles and books such as Greenhouse Solutions with Sustainable Energy. Many of Diesendorf's views are echoed around the world in publications such as State of the World 2008, The Clean Tech Revolution and Plan B 2.0. I would not call his views "fringe" as they are now part of mainstream thinking about energy policy. Johnfos (talk) 02:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Subsidies and incentives can come through structural and indirect or direct methods. The problem is, one persons view of that structure may differ to another depending on what assumptions are made and where boundaries are defined. Johnfos is correct in saying that Mark Diesendorf's opinions are hardly fringe. Mark's assumptions, I suspect, are not shared by many participants in the development of Australian energy policy. Neutrality in point of view is precisely the problem because this article does not reflect the range of views that exist both in the Australian community nor even the developers of Australian energy policy. The article talks about the PRRT keeping oil prices artificially low. That may well be the case, but the statement as found in this article does not provide any credibility. What about the PRRT keeps the oil prices low? Who's research came to that conclusion (ie a citation would be good)? Intuitively a resource rent tax increases the cost of extraction/production of the resource, and a resource extraction company could either pass it (and its cost effects) on to consumers or consider the resource unviable. If the resource is a globally produced and traded undifferentiated commodity (like crude oil), but the taxation regime being national to Australia, then the price of the resource product (petroleum) could be essentially unaffected by a national resource rent tax on resource fields. But is there value in the existence of and operational knowledge of petroleum resource production to the taxing organisation (Australian government and the community it represents)? What society costs (such as lifestyle addictions) come with using a commodity that will ultimately need to be paid for by the Australian government, such as if production capacity for the commodity becomes scarce (Peak Oil)? These two drivers pull the taxation lever in opposite directions for a resource rent tax such as the PRRT. Regardless of the pump price, does consumers of Australian petroleum resources pay too low a total price for using petroleum? As consumers, what rational reason would they want to pay a greater price if they don't have to? So what is it about the PRRT that keeps oil prices low? This article needs to communicate these policy specifics along the diversity of views in order to improve quality to Wikipedia recommended standards. 124.170.236.124 (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to remove "State policies" section

This article is in a bit of a mess, and it struck me that with the recent inclusion of the State Energy Templates at the end of the article, we could eliminate the Energy policy of Australia#State policies section. The Queensland sub-section could be split to a new article Energy in Queensland and the remaining State coverage (mainly dot points about subsidies) could be deleted. This would allow the article to flow a lot more and make it more readable, without losing much useful content. Johnfos (talk) 05:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds logical. Beagel (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I object to the proposed deletion. This is not to say taht the article is as good as it could/should be. With respect, what it does is fragment the article which is not about energy policies of the Commonwealth. It is an overview of the energy policies pursued within Australia having particular regard to the evidence of the actual policies pursued by focusing on taxes levied and subsidies provided and regulations imposed/exemptions given. The templates now referenced are more about the physical assets rather than the policies that have lead to them dinghy (talk) 13:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see an editor has already started Energy in Queensland, which is fine. Given that the article is still 41k long, I will do some pruning of the State policies section but, in the light of Dingy's comment, won't go as far as I first intended... Johnfos (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The separate states having each their own navigational templates is turning this page into a real mess. Does someone want to create an Australian wide navbox for this page and others like it, rather than having several state boxes? Wiki ian 04:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with there being new pages on the energy policies in each state as there is for Queensland with a very short summary included in this principal article (as is commonplace within Wikipedia) and the state pages could then have the state navigational templates. In the absence of that for all states I am against the deletion of the sate navigational templates in the absence of a comprehensive national navigational template. Cheers dinghy (talk) 05:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First Sentance

"Energy policy of Australia is subject to regulation and fiscal influence of the three levels of Government in Australia" How much influence does the council level of government have on energy policy? Lumberjack Steve (talk) 15:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Split proposal

Energy in Australia is currently a redirect to Energy policy of Australia. Energy is a different topic to Energy policy and they are both notable and therefore deserve their own articles. Some of the content on this page is more relevant to an Energy in Australia article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The two are inherently interlinked as the energy sources used are partly a function of government subsidy (direct and also by building of relevant infrastructure such as railways and ports), allowing externalities (such as mercury emissions of coal fired power stations) and policy is sometimes best exposed by looking at what the outcomes are and where largesse is distributed through the pork barrel. Provided this article is not undermined by removal of parts which show the outcomes of (or in spite of stated) policy I have no objection.dinghy (talk) 06:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest as in categories 1) Category:Energy by country, 2) Category:Energy policy by country and 3) Category:Electric power by country:
Present chapters Energy policy of Australia#Power production and Energy policy of Australia#Fossil fuels could be moved, in my opinion, to Energy in Australia, as suggested in Aug 2010. I see no conflict here. Is there a “Split tool” or “Move tool” to move also the history of the edits? If so, please help in the move. Watti Renew (talk) 14:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Electricity in Australia?

Dont we need to create a page like Electricity sector in India for Australia? There is a page for Green Electricity in Australia and Wind Power in Australia, but what about Electricity in Australia? 116.240.160.188 (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of that is covered in state based articles due to historical development (eg. Energy in Queensland) as well as Energy policy of Australia. Isn't that suffice? - Shiftchange (talk) 15:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Polluter pays principle

Australia will have carbon tax in 2012. In my opinion, the International Polluter pays principle would be justified method to control the climate change emissions and would be a fare solution to the disaster costs caused by the climate change. Has this been discussed in Australia? Watti Renew (talk) 18:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Many aspects of mitigating climate change have been extensively debated in Australia for years. One of the largest studies was the Garnaut Climate Change Review. I'm not sure if Garnaut ever used the phrase "Polluter pays principle". Please remember that discussion pages are for discussions related to improving the article. - Shiftchange (talk) 03:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the State of the World 2009, in the chapter of Robert Engelman Worldwatch Institute, the Polluter pays principle is named as a method to divide the climate gas emission expenses in respect to cumulative emissions from the year 1750 or 1950. Coal-fired power stations caused world wide estimated €356 billion minimum damage in 2007 and €356 trillion in ten years.ref Delf 2008 p.9 According to IEA Australia’s cumulative CO2 emissions from coal during 1971-2008 were 5,392 Mt. (1.78 % of the worldwide) and respectively world total 303,262 Mt. Thus estimated Australian share of the world coal fuel external costs with the emissions in 1971-2008 were in minimum €6.33 billion in 2007 (1.78 % €356 billion) and about the same each year thereafter depending on the cumulative emissions. This calculation can be made for each country.
The now introduced and in the article included carbon tax can be used to collect the €6.33 billion each year. Does this tax cover the expenses? Does Australia take its responsibility of the caused international damages? I question if your national authority can guarantee a neutral division of the over €6 billion annual funds from your coal fuel external damages. This concerns energy politics of Australia, the key point in this article, does it not? Watti Renew (talk) 15:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Energy_policy_of_Australia"