week 1 after "c" day - how has gillard fared?, page-13

You are persistent with that question fazz03.

Mungo MacCallum's piece does address the issue of compensation to a degree.

My opinion is that the carbon price should provide incentive for fossil carbon intensive industries to adopt more sustainable practices. Directing some of the funds raised towards reducing impacts on vulnerable consumers does give the price a clearer focus. So does cross subsidising some export oriented industries although here we quickly run into the problem of picking winners.

I do see the need for some structural change as a consequence of our carbon price. IMO, running aluminium refiners/smelters on coal power is one industry we do not need in the short term. Perhaps Bell Bay should stay because the smelter there is largely hydro powered but even in that place alumina reduction is hartd to justify. W do not have much hydro here in Australia and what we do have is highly valued for load levelling.

I have written in the past about relocating alumina reduction to the Ord River in the Kimberleys but this would entail building potlines that run continuously for only five to nine months some years. Aluminium potlines are built to run continuously, year in year out as far as I know.