Abbot Point was expanded to cater for developments in the Galilee Basin. Until Galilee comes on line, the expanded facility is running at about 50% capacity. It is currently reported as being profitable however wouldn’t realise it’s full exporting potential without Galilee coming on line. If Galilee doesn’t come on line, then the expansion investments would not deliver a return (would become a potential liability) causing them to be stranded assets.
Unfortunately there has been many myths thrown around about Bravus on line, to try and justify more than on environmental grounds why Bravus shouldn’t shouldn’t proceed.
“If questions are going to be asked about fossil fuel subsidies, which they are, then what we need to be saying is: OK, if we need to take action against fossil fuel subsidies – and the Australian government acknowledges that this is an area that there needs to have action on – then why not do the same on agricultural subsidies?” he said.
I don’t get how subsidies to agricultural production equate to carbon or methane emissions.
If the subsidies for agriculture are removed doesn’t this lead to …?
some agricultural products being more expensive,
some ag products being produced in other countries (shifting where the emissions are emitted),
some being replaced by alternatives (more or fewer emissions).
Of course Australia might need to look at how it also subsidies agricultural production. The outcome could only increase the cost of our ag products/exports and would see Australia need to put a price on carbon the same as the EU.
That the EU agricultural production is responsible for 10% of all EU emissions, and similar for the US, it’s unlikely any change to subsidies will have a significant impact on global emissions from agriculture. On the other hand Agriculture produces 13% of Australia’s emissions, and more in good years.
My take is that it is not at all related to swapping carbon sources or offsets or even some deal withing the global carbon market but simple horse trading, along the lines that if the EU wants Oz to do something (reduce emissions) they have to give something (reduce their subsidies to advantage our farmers).
Weird I know but not as weird as the Minister casually agreeing that we subsidise FF contrary to general denials and the specific steaming ordure produced by some FF apologists.
An article on a study the University of Qld are undertaking that relates to possible uptake of V2G and helping renewable uptake. They are only looking at Teslas at the moment but may seek other brands later.
