John H., Billytea and Rob - It seems that Australia is about to get the worlds tallest humanmade object.

It's here but only Australia works.

Hee. "Adelaide is known for its churches, its fine wines and its serial killers."

(And as it happens, only the Northern Territory has a higher murder rate in Australia.)

John H., Billytea and Rob - It seems that Australia is about to get the worlds tallest humanmade object.

Yep. It was reported in The Economist a couple of months ago. The firm claims that the plant will be competitive with Australian coal (the world's cheapest), though this relies on, effectively, a subsidy to reduce greenhouse gas emmissions. Not, in and of itself, a bad thing IMO; but it'd be politically and economically more secure if it can become more efficient in the future. (New technologies often do, of course.)

Meanwhile, I believe I speak for all Melburnians at least when I say "at least it's not the Grollos".

After seeing John's map, I totally believe in the project. I guess I thought of all the Australians as living on the upper right, and I didn't know Min was from there at all. That was really cool.

do "Buffistas outside the USA" as one project and worry about those inside the USA as another, that could work.

That works for me, because I feel like I'm talking to all these exotic people when I see where John H lives, but when I find out Allyson lives in California, I'm like, "Oh. My grandmother lives there."

I think the zoomed-out map should have one arrow per spot and the number of Buffistas who live at that spot. Clicking the number pops up the names. It would fit better and would give you a good idea of the distribution. If you were looking around the map for a specific person, you could use the list. If you were thinking, "I wonder how many people live in Washington, D.C., or if anyone lives in Russia," you could use the map.

Doesn't Australian coal rely on subsidies for it's cheapness? A few months ago I tried to find out the actual cost of Australian coal, and ended up with a letter from one of your ministers explaining (extremely politely, and with absolute sympathy for my innocence as a non-aussie) that this was a trade secret.

Doesn't Australian coal rely on subsidies for it's cheapness?

Reliance? I'd be surprised; Australia has substantial, reasonably reachable coal supplies, a large market (one article I found gave it about 50% of the world export market in metallurgical coal) and high technological levels. More importantly, perhaps, Australia seems to spend some effort in challenging subsidies in the EU and US (at the Uruguay talks, it got the EU to hold static its subsidised coal production until Dec 2002 - I don't know what's happened with discussions to extend the agreement), and got the US to apply stricter conditions to its synthetic fuel subsidies on the basis of competition with Australian coal, without apparently attracting much retaliatory accusations.

(Finally, of course, a Google search on 'australia coal subsidy' was rather sparse on hits concerning an actual Australian coal subsidy.)

Which is not to say that the coal industry does not benefit at all from subsidies (since I don't know, the above reasoning is essentially circumstantial and there may possibly be indirect subsidies whose effect would be hard to entangle); but it seems unlikely any such is significant compared to those offered by other developed nations - I doubt Australia's cpompetitive position relies on subsidies, and indeed if international subsidies were removed from all countries its position would improve.

I did find one reference from Greenpeace back in 1997 that claimed Australia provided direct coal subsidies (albeit at a level substantially below that of the US or EU); it would be interesting to find out more on that, both some detail on said subsidies and whether there's been any change in the last five years. Nor, of course, does this say anything about past consitions, nor future ones (when Chinese coal is likely to create greater comepetitive pressure).

Of greater concern, IMO, was the Howard government's behaviour at Kyoto, in which rather than agreeing to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, instead won an increase to 108% of the then existing levels. (While it's true that energy plays a rather greater role in the Australian economy than in most developed nations, I can think of better ways to account for that than simply refusing to contribute to solving the problem.) I would see the problem less as propping up the Australian coal industry (which seems to be competitive in its own right) as failing to support the development of alternatives. (On which note, this story is something worth watching. Australia does, after all, have fairly vast quantities of sunlight as well as coal.)

Er, all of which is basically saying that failing to account for externalities is more of a problem regarding coal production generally (including Australia) than the producer-borne costs.

Yeah. What billytea said. t grin

I'm thinking more of subsides to buyers than to producers. It was just that I was told absolutely that while the sale price to homeowners was publicly availbable, the sale price to industry was a deep dark secret. But I agree that externalites in coal production are much more important. It just seems that if the sale price to industry is a secret something going on. Of course I shoujld have considered that what is going on may simply be the stupid keeping of absolutely worthless secrets.

I'm thinking more of subsides to buyers than to producers.

True, though this generally works through support for development agencies, which being not simply coal-specific makes them a rather inefficient way to support local industry - and of course, whether and by how much it benefits Australian coal producers isn't immediately apparent (they do actually have to have the technology and clean coal to compete in any case). The claim is that said agencies support the development of cleaner coal plants and use of cleaner coal, which is then less polluting than the cheaper and dirtier coal plants said countries would operate left to their own devices, which is--well, true, pollution is more of a developed nation concern; but still rather convenient, and while it may be better than the situation without such subsidies, it still passes up the opportunity to develop renewable energy capacity in developing nations, as long as these agencies are offering the subsidies.

But again, the Australian coal industry was competitive prior to this policy initiative, and whether this benefits producers to any great extent is dubious. It essentially would increase the premium on cleaner-burning coal to some extent.

It seems to me to be more connected to Australia attempting to deflect flak from its (lack of) greenhouse gas policy, by claiming that this counts as doing something about it.

Coal isn't something I normally expect to get TMI on.

But then, maybe I'm just not used to Buffistas yet.

That big tower thing is the coolest thing in the world. Typo Boy (fuck it, Gar, can I call you Gar, still?) Gar, do you get the Viridian newsletter? It turned up there a while back, and I think you'd like it.