Gillard: "Isn't, you know, sort of money going in and money going out? What's the effect? Well, the effect is that in the shops when you come to buy things, products that are made with relatively less carbon pollution will be cheaper than products that are made with more carbon pollution. So you're standing there with your household assistance in your hand. You could still keep buying the high carbon pollution products if you want to or what you're far more likely to do is to buy the cheaper, lower carbon pollution products. That means that the people who make those things will get the consumer signal, gee, we will sell more, we will make more money if we make lower pollution products"
pretty sure there won't be much difference in the rise between a large majority of products in peoples everyday life (on the shelf). Two companies producing the same product currently are most likely having a price differential of let's say maximum 10-20%. So the actual marginal gain from improving some of the supply chain in your control has to result in a 30-40% reduction in cost versus your competitor. (remembering you can't change the trucking input, the retailer electrical input, the business overheads electricity). Efficiencies in the manufacturing process would hardly be walk up 20% that you can find and others can't, or why wouldn't you do it now for the same competitive advantage?
Did anyone else like the part where she said:
Gillard "Here's the news: the price of electricity is going up. Either way it's going up."
We're just making the retail price go up faster than it would have in order to make marginal generation technologies commercially feasible instead of allowing natural innovation and supply/demand forces do their thing
