Other 1. What should the new VEET target be? Other (please specify a target and length): 6.9 million tonnes CO2-e per year for 5 years [Required if 'Other' selected] * 1a. Please outline why you prefer the improving energy efficiency in our buildings target you identified, or why you selected would open up a lot of new jobs in the work "No response": force. Old fossil fuel ways need to be phased out and new technologies introduced to make these targets possible. also the target needs to be set in concrete so targets cannot be revised downwards by a change of government. Benefits of energy efficiency and greenhouse 2. Comments are invited on the modelling approach used to determine the costs and gas emissions abatement activities have not benefits of the VEET scheme. Is there any been used in the review modelling. there additional data or information that should would be wider economic benefits: on be considered? employment growth, savings to the government energy budget concessions and to Public health benefits in extreme weather events. these ideas will result in greater targets. 3. Which greenhouse gas coefficient No response should be used to quantify the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions achieved by the VEET scheme? 3a. Please outline why you believe this no one efficiency should be used to quantify option is preferred, or why you selected green house gas emissions "No response": 4. The Department has valued greenhouse the modelling is likely to have gas emissions reductions attributed to the underestimated the benefits of reducing gas VEET scheme by adopting a carbon emissions. by using an "abatement" value - valuation series that was produced by the what it actually costs to reduce one tonne of Federal Climate Change Authority as part greenhouse gas it will cover what gases are of its 2014 Targets and Progress Review. created exactly not just what modelling Please outline whether you think this suggests. the social cost- damage to farms, people and property is unknown. the USA approach is appropriate for valuing greenhouse gas emissions reductions over uses a value of $37 per ton of greenhouse gas the period 2016 to 2050? which is considerably higher than our VEET model of $5.49 per CO2-e therefore my suggested 6.9 m per year will deliver positive results. 5. Is there a case to exclude any business No sector(s) from participation in the VEET scheme? 5a. Please outline why this is your
1. What should the new VEET target be? Other Other (please specify a target and length): [Required if 'Other' selected] * 6.9 million tonnes CO2-e per year for 5 years 1a. Please outline why you prefer the target you identified, or why you selected "No response": improving energy efficiency in our buildings would open up a lot of new jobs in the work force. Old fossil fuel ways need to be phased out and new technologies introduced to make these targets possible. also the target needs to be set in concrete so targets cannot be revised downwards by a change of government. 2. Comments are invited on the modelling approach used to determine the costs and benefits of the VEET scheme. Is there any additional data or information that should be considered? Benefits of energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions abatement activities have not been used in the review modelling. there would be wider economic benefits: on employment growth, savings to the government energy budget concessions and to Public health benefits in extreme weather events. these ideas will result in greater targets. 3. Which greenhouse gas coefficient should be used to quantify the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions achieved by the VEET scheme? No response 3a. Please outline why you believe this option is preferred, or why you selected "No response": no one efficiency should be used to quantify green house gas emissions 4. The Department has valued greenhouse gas emissions reductions attributed to the VEET scheme by adopting a carbon valuation series that was produced by the Federal Climate Change Authority as part of its 2014 Targets and Progress Review. Please outline whether you think this approach is appropriate for valuing greenhouse gas emissions reductions over the period 2016 to 2050? the modelling is likely to have underestimated the benefits of reducing gas emissions. by using an "abatement" value - what it actually costs to reduce one tonne of greenhouse gas it will cover what gases are created exactly not just what modelling suggests. the social cost- damage to farms, people and property is unknown. the USA uses a value of $37 per ton of greenhouse gas which is considerably higher than our VEET model of $5.49 per CO2-e therefore my suggested 6.9 m per year will deliver positive results. 5. Is there a case to exclude any business sector(s) from participation in the VEET scheme? No 5a. Please outline why this is your
Hocking-Meredith.docx